David Curry: The concern of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for my constituency is touching from a neighbour and I am grateful to him. Will the Minister note that, over the last few weeks, there have been four reports into the condition of the countryside, all of which highlight the problems of rural transport? If any resources were to become available for extending passenger rail links, will he bear in mind that getting ordinary people who do not have the means of transport to work and enabling them to carry out their normal daily tasks is more important than transporting tourists to the Yorkshire dales?

Douglas Alexander: Up to £200 million a year of the transport innovation fund has been made available to support local packages of measures to address congestion. Those include demand management measures, such as road pricing, as well as investment in public transport to ensure that our towns and cities support the long term economic success of the UK.

John Leech: Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he expects any bids for money from the transport innovation fund to be successful if they do not include an element of congestion charging or road-user pricing?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, both in relation to me and my ministerial colleague. I said in the speech that I wanted to make a personal priority of taking forward the debate on a national road pricing scheme. We need such a debate, partly because there are genuine questions in the minds of motorists and other members of the public that need to be addressed. We would aim for a national consensus, and I hope that we can secure it over the months ahead, or at least begin to unbundle some of the questions that have been directed at me today. I make no secret of the fact that genuine technological questions need to be addressed. I hope that the local pilots will help us to answer other questions, which is why I think that it is sensible to have a graduated response that shows the benefits of road pricing in areas in which that can be seen to be an effective solution to congestion.

Ann Winterton: When will the Government publish their response to the recent consultation on the future of rural and community railway lines? Does the Minister accept that it is vital that there are improved connections between the rural lines, which survive the forthcoming cuts, and the national network, which would bring increased revenue to offset public subsidy? Would that not be a simple example of an integrated transport policy, which was much heralded nine years ago by the Deputy Prime Minister, although it subsequently appears to have sunk without trace?

Derek Twigg: I do not accept that. We launched three franchises only last week: new cross country, west midlands and east midlands. They will lead to a 3 to5 per cent. increase in services. The east and west midlands franchises will be asked to work with and develop community rail. We are thus seeing an improvement to services and an increase in their number as a result of what the Government are doing. Part of the west midlands franchise will be a new hourly service between Birmingham and Manchester that will serve Congleton, which is in the hon. Lady's constituency.

David Taylor: Will the Minister give an indication of the Government's thinking on the National Forest line, a passenger service that would be restored to the Leicester to Burton section of the rail network? It seems to tick all the boxes that are necessary, but in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle(Mr. Prentice), he talked about a business case. This line has one that is strong environmentally, economically, socially and, dare I say, running through four marginal Labour seats, politically?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, especially his last comment. On business cases, there is a great demand for services and improvements to stations and lines. Although a record amount of money is going to the railway and significant improvements have been made, we have to consider such cases. In the first instance, it is up to the local authority, as the promoter, working with Network Rail to produce a business case. However, my hon. Friend will be aware, as I just mentioned, that last week we published the east midlands and cross-country franchise consultation documents, which set out the minimum service required. We want views from a range of stakeholders, and I am sure that we will hear from him, about what people want. We will consider responses carefully before we make final decisions about the franchise.

Stephen Hammond: In the Minister's answers to my hon. Friends, he reiterated the Government's rhetoric that rural, community and light rail are important to them. However, if they really believed their own rhetoric, they would not be closing rural railway lines, but increasing their usage, and they would have spent more than 0.3 per cent. of the Department for Transport's budget on light rail. The consultation that is now happening is leading to the closure rural, smaller and community rail links. It is surely on the way to ditching another policy. That means another policy will be ditched, another policy will be U-turned, and there will be more problems for the travelling public.

Stephen Ladyman: The draft orders for the scheme were published on 31 January 2006 and a 13-week period ending on 5 May 2006 was provided to allow affected parties and other members of the public to provide their comments. By the end of this period the Highways Agency had received 2,691 pieces of correspondence concerning the proposals. Some 1,446 objections, 997 support letters, 28 representations and another 220 miscellaneous pieces of correspondence were received which included queries, freedom of information requests and other questions.

Michael Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. May I tell him why I could not agree to the proposals? In my constituency, the scheme will displace the problems that have been experienced in Tintwistle. For example, on the A628, over Salters bridge, the traffic in 2010 will increase by 56 per cent. and in 2025 by 94 per cent. Those are already busy roads. It is a similar story through Penistone, Thurlstone and Millhouse Green. On the A616 on the other side of my constituency, there will also be marked increases in traffic through Bolsterstone, Midhopestones and Langsett. Does he agree that there needs to be robust restraining measures to ensure that the lorries—

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposals affect my part of south Yorkshire, too, including the villages of Langsett , Midhopestones and Bolsterstone. I am therefore pleased that he has made a commitment to a meeting, and I hope that he will invite all the MPs in south Yorkshire who are affected.

Stephen Ladyman: I am certainly happy to meet myhon. Friend, too, to hear her objections. I do not know whether she wishes me to invite to that meeting Government Members who support the proposals strongly, or whether we should have a separate meeting to discuss the issues.

Jim Devine: I am grateful to my right hon. Friendfor that answer. Will he join me in congratulating the Labour-led Scottish Executive on improving punctuality and reliability. Only two weeks ago, they announced that they would extend the rail line from Bathgate to Airdrie, ensuring that my constituents have three direct rail routes to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Andrew Love: May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the continuing problems with One railway in my north London constituency. In February, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), wrote to me about the difficulties that had occurred as a result of industrial action on the railways. Since then, very little has improved. Four days ago, my constituent, Ray Knight, received a letter from the Advertising Standards Authority, in which it said that it was instructing One
	"to change their advertising to remove the claim regarding a30 minute frequency where it does not apply".
	Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the Government will undertake a robust review of the franchise agreement to ensure the reliability of rail services in my constituency?

Fiona Mactaggart: May I welcome the Minister to his new role. As someone who is quite good at spotting odd cover-ups, let me tell him that all Thames valley MPs of all parties are concerned about the punctuality and efficiency of the commuter service that leads into the Thames valley. The service between Slough and Paddington has become less frequent, and because of the reduction in frequency, it might appear more punctual and more effective. Unless we have an effective rail commuter service into the Thames valley, which is the engine of Britain's economy, we risk losing much inward investment into the UK.

Robert Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the things hecould do to improve the punctuality and reliability of commuter services is to unplug the national bottleneck that exists at Reading station? Will he finally announce that the funds will be made available?

Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for his response and welcome the reduction in the number of deaths and injuries. However, far too many people still suffer death and injury as a result of drink driving. Does he agree that now is the time to consider reducing the alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg, which would bring us in line with other European countries?

Stephen Ladyman: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to reduce drink driving. She will have seen the campaign launched by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about drinking during the summer months and the World cup, and other extensive efforts on education are continuing. However, we are still not enforcing the 80 mg limit as strictly as I would like, and we should put our resources into that before we reduce the level to 50 mg. When we have achieved strict enforcement at 80 mg, perhaps we can re-examine the matter.

Stephen Ladyman: I hear what my hon. Friend has said and acknowledge his interest in the matter. I have spoken to the Association of Chief Police Officers in England, which has expressed the view that it would like to see the level come down to 50 mg at some point. However, there is no point in discussing harmonisation with the level in Europe, because, although most states in Europe specify lower levels of alcohol in their law, they do not enforce at those levels. In this country, we are, at least, enforcing hard at 80 mg. I have pointed out to ACPO that the police need to put resources into making sure that nobody breaks the 80 mg limit. When we are confident that we are achieving success at that level, it will be time to think about further reducing the level.

Stephen Ladyman: We must work with the courts, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and others on reviewing the sentencing guidelines. The courts need to understand that it is the wish of this House that serious punishments should be issued for such offences. People around the country are fed up with seeing people avoid long sentences and be given a tap on the wrist for some of the most serious offences that we can envisage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party will support us in our approach.

Dvla

Stephen Ladyman: I am aware of the anomaly, and Iam talking to my colleagues in Northern Irelandabout it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to provide me with further evidence of the problems facing his constituents, I shall be grateful to receive it.

Robert Goodwill: Is the Minister aware that pesticide run-off, which is often a big problem on the rail network and with highways weed control, is often blamed on farmers? Will she work with Network Rail to try to minimise that problem as, despite the fact that the problem is not caused by farmers, it may result in some important pesticides being limited to agricultural use?

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which we shall doubtless debate later today when we consider the Electoral Administration Bill, which deals with registration. I take his point seriously. The number of people who live in inner cities but are not registered and therefore not counted bythe boundary commissions makes a considerable difference. He makes a good point about ensuring that everyone is counted and registered, so that we properly reflect the communities that we are supposed to represent.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that the criteria given to the Boundary Commission by the House need to change? The reason why constituencies are so hopelessly out of kilter in numbers of electors is that the commission is always working on out-of-date statistics. It is to allowed to look backwards but not forwards, and this causes huge anomalies that could easily be avoided. Will the Minister give me an undertaking that this matter will be looked at?

Limitations of Actions Report

Peter Bottomley: The Minister referred to the four years since the Government basically accepted the Law Commission's recommendation. Would it help to produce parliamentary encouragement for the Governmentif a list of all the outstanding Law Commission recommendations was published each year, outlining what progress is being made and what blockages there are to fulfilling those steps towards greater justice?

Jonathan Djanogly: We understand that the £80 million cut in the court budget this year could lead to a reduction of services and the loss of up to 1,300 jobs. Last week, the Minister of State revealed to me that the courts failed to collect some £282 million worth of fines. Does not that debacle prove once again the Government's inability to run public services, and the inability of Constitutional Affairs Ministers to run their own Department?

Harriet Harman: No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that, having inherited a position in which nearly half the fines imposed by the courts were not collected, a great deal of work has been done between the police and the courts across the country and the collection rate has been increased to more than 80 per cent. That money goes to the Treasury, which I am sure is extremely pleased to receive it. The finances of the Courts Service are not what the hon. Gentleman said that they were. In fact, the courts did not spend the full amount that they thought that they would in the previous year. Perhaps, to help hon. Members to understand the exact position, I will place in the Library a copy of the permanent secretary's letter to all court staff. That would enable hon. Members to see the financial situation, which is challenging, but not of the dimensions that the hon. Gentleman implied.

Harriet Harman: The Oxfordshire coroner opened and adjourned the inquest into the death ofDr. David Kelly on 17 July 2003. He resumed the inquest on 14 August 2003 to admit post-mortem evidence from the Home Office pathologist and a toxicology report. He then adjourned the inquest as directed by the Lord Chancellor pending Lord Hutton's public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly. Having read the Hutton report, the coroner announced at an open hearing on 16 March 2004 that there was no exceptional reason to resume the inquest.

DEEPCUT REVIEW

Adam Ingram: On 29 March I announcedto the House the publication of the Government-commissioned Deepcut review, undertaken independently by Nicholas Blake QC. It looked into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers who were training at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, between 1995 and 2002. I gave the House an assurance that I was determined to deal with the issues raised by Mr. Blake, and undertook to ensure that everything possible would be done to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future. I said that we would look at every one of Mr. Blake's 34 recommendations to see how they should best be implemented to address the weaknesses that had been identified as quickly and effectively as possible.
	Today I am publishing the Government's response to the Deepcut review. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. I understand that the publication of our response will inevitably evoke sad memories for the families of the soldiers who died at Deepcut. I hope that they will find some comfort in our response to Mr. Blake's recommendations.
	Having completed the detailed analysis of the report, I reiterate that it is an exhaustive, illuminating and thorough review, and I repeat my tribute and gratitude to Mr. Blake for such a comprehensive piece of work. I am confident that its enduring legacy will be a better and more caring framework for young trainees and service personnel more generally. The Government have acknowledged that mistakes were made in the past, and that there were failures in the way in which young and sometimes vulnerable recruits were cared for. I believe that the report will constitute a watershed in the treatment of our servicemen and women.
	The services had, of course, already made significant changes and improvements before the Deepcut review, as Mr. Blake readily acknowledges in his report. For example, much greater attention is being paid to risk of self-harm and preventive measures; there are stricter controls over access to firearms; supervision of recruits and trainees has improved; appreciable new investment in facilities and accommodation has occurred and is ongoing; and a new harassment complaints procedure has been implemented.
	However, the Deepcut review has highlighted that there is more that we can do, particularly in some key areas. I can confirm to the House that we accept the great majority of the review's recommendations, although in some cases with necessary and justifiable modification or qualification, as explained in our response. However, in those cases, we are still confident that we can give meaning to the intent behind the recommendation. There are very few recommendations that we cannot meet either wholly or in substantial part, and I now turn to these.
	Recommendation 30 concerns the availability of an inquest wherever the death occurs, in this country or overseas. We are very much in sympathy with this thinking, but of course, it bears upon the draft Coroners Bill that has been published for consultation. Consequently, we are in discussion with the Department for Constitutional Affairs as to how that recommendation might be given effect.
	Recommendation 31 also concerns inquests, in this case ensuring that the family of a deceased soldier has access to legal advice and representation. It is our intention to support families as much as we can throughout what are sad and distressing events, but there is a general presumption that interested persons at an inquest do not normally need to be legally represented. However, there is provision, in exceptional cases, for application for funding to be made to the Legal Services Commission. I believe that to bethe appropriate mechanism and process to satisfy the recommendation.
	Finally, recommendation 33 recommends to the Surrey police that the families of Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray be provided with copies of the respective Surrey police reports, solely for the purpose of considering whether an application should be made to the High Court to set aside the previous inquest into their child's death. That is of course entirely a matter for the Surrey police, but I have written to the chief constable stating that, in the Ministry of Defence's view, that is a helpful suggestion from Mr. Blake, and that, for our part, we would be happy to co-operate fully in such a process.
	As I said earlier, we have accepted the great majority of the Deepcut review's recommendations, and, as the response that I have published today shows, some are already in the process of being implemented. Work has already begun to address the rest. However, I know that a number of the issues raised in the review are of particular interest to Members, and it is to those that I now turn.
	First, let me emphasise that we fully accept and agree with the review's concern that the needs of service personnel under the age of 18—and their vulnerabilities— should be recognised. That is now reflected in new guidance to commanding officers. A "care of trainees" module was introduced to the training programme for instructors and other supervisory staff in 2004. That has now been incorporated in the "train the trainer" course for instructors, which has been introduced across the armed forces.
	A new supervisory care policy in phase 1 and 2 training establishments was introduced in March this year, and each unit is required to compile an assessment of the risk to trainees that takes account of the particular circumstances of that establishment and its population. There are specific policies aimed at the well-being of under-18s in terms of how they are accommodated, their recreational and social facilities, and their duties, including access to firearms.
	One of the most significant areas of the review is the provision of independent assurance of our processes, and in particular the military justice system and the military complaints systems. We intend to introduce or enhance independent oversight of both those areas. The Police and Justice Bill will provide for the creation of a new combined inspectorate for the criminal justice system. Following discussion with the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary, we intend to use that opportunity to extend and deepen inspection arrangements across the military justice system. Those working within that system strive to perform with professionalism and to standards comparable to those in the civilian criminal justice system. External assurance will serve further to demonstrate that.
	Turning to the military redress of complaints system, as the House is aware, we have already made proposals under the Armed Forces Bill to improve that process and to introduce an independent element to it. We intend that the service complaint panels dealing with complaints such as those relating to harassment and bullying will include an independent member, and that the complaints process will be reviewed annually and publicly by an independent external reviewer. But in the light of the recommendations of the Deepcut review, and of representations made by Members during the consideration of the Bill by the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, we propose to go further. We propose that the role of the external reviewer should be extended, providing him or her with the ability to accept complaints directly from a serviceperson or a family member, or another third party on their behalf; to have the power to refer such complaints to the chain of command for appropriate action; and to be informed of the outcome of that complaint.
	That wider role would justify the title of service complaints commissioner. Critically, the commissioner would have direct access to Ministers. Furthermore, to ensure effective oversight the commissioner would report annually to Parliament. The House will note that in some practical respects this model for a commissioner is different from that proposed in the Deepcut review. Let me stress that there is, however, no difference between the Government and Mr. Blake over the fundamental intent, which is to promote the effective operation of existing military proceedings and provide independent assurance that the procedures are working effectively, with systemic issues appropriately addressed.
	Turning to the proposal that a commissioner might have the right to be consulted in disciplinary matters, or have the ability to intervene to institute legal proceedings against prosecution decisions, we believe that that would potentially undermine the role and independence of the prosecuting authorities. I know of no precedent for such a role in the civilian criminal justice system.
	We have listened carefully to evidence given to various Select Committees and by Members of both Houses. We maintain—and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members would share this view—that the chain of command's primary responsibility for welfare should not be undermined. However, in providing for a service complaints commissioner, we accept the need for external, independent assurance, especially for a vulnerable young trainee—or his family or friends—who may feel uncomfortable about approaching a commanding officer directly. Subject to views expressed in this House and in the other place, the Government would propose to bring forward amendments to the Armed Forces Bill to provide for a service complaints commissioner.
	Our armed forces are deeply valued by the Government and by the whole House. Their well-being is very much at the heart of this response to the Deepcut review. We are committed to improving the way in which all our recruits are trained, developed and looked after. We are resolute in our aim to deliver real, measurable and tangible improvements to the benefit of all our personnel who serve our country so well. As I stated earlier, this will be a watershed in how our servicemen and women are treated. I am determined to deliver on the commitments, and the external scrutiny that will be put in place will hold us to account now and in the future.

Liam Fox: I am sure that I speak for both sides of the House when I say that we wish profoundly that the tragic deaths of four young people had not made this report necessary, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response and his courtesy in making the statement available to us in advance.
	As I said the last time that we discussed this subject, the social trends in our country today mean that an increasing number of recruits come from broken family backgrounds, have poor academic achievements and are often deficit in basic skills. The fact that the Army can transform them into world class soldiers is something of which we should all be justly proud. We also need to remember that the cases that we are discussing today are very much the exceptions, and I am sure that the Minister would want to underline that.
	Let us remind ourselves of some of the basic facts of this tragedy. Of the four young victims, two had previous, clearly recorded episodes of self-harm in their medical notes prior to recruitment. One of the others had clearly documented episodes of self-harm while in the Army. Another was about to be forced to leave the Army against his will. These vulnerable individuals were not only given loaded guns, but put on solitary guard duty in remote locations. They were given both means and opportunity and, as the Minister said, the Government accept that that represented a failure in duty of care.
	The Blake report found that there was bullying, but that it was by no means endemic nor clearly linked to any of the four deaths. However, it also said that there were too few non-commissioned officers to supervise training properly—a fact that the Army had pointed out already. What can we learn from the Government's response to the report, and how can we ensure that the tragedies cannot be repeated?
	To begin with, we must make sure that there is a comprehensive system for assessing a recruit's medical history. That means more than merely having sight of medical notes: there must be a proper investigation into the medical history of all recruits. Will the Minister confirm that that has been happening in all casessince 2004?
	What about the ratio of NCOs to recruits? The 2002 report by the Deputy Adjutant-General found that the level of supervision
	"was wholly inadequate and greatly magnified the level of risk."
	What has been done to improve that ratio?
	The Minister spoke about phase 2 training, but the problem went beyond supervision. The indeterminate length of that training was a factor that exacerbated the unhappiness of many recruits, so what has been done to ameliorate that?
	The Minister was right to talk about the inquests system, but merely amending the forthcoming Bill is not good enough. At present, 59 inquests into the deaths of servicemen killed in Iraq remain outstanding. There needs to be a change in how the system is operated or funded. I know that the Secretary of State is looking at that, and I hope that the Minister will say where the Government have got to in respect of dealing with the backlog and with the current failures in the inquests system.
	I am pleased that the Government have not caved in to the arguments for introducing a full-blown ombudsman, and that the Minister said that the chain of command's primary responsibility for welfare should not be undermined. The Opposition completely agree, but how will the relationship between commissioner and commander work in practice? What will the interface be? Who will select the commissioner, and according to what criteria? What sort of background will the commissioner have? We would much prefer it if he had a military background, and therefore an understanding of the pressures in the chain of command.
	I am grateful to the Government for their response. We shall look constructively and in detail at what they propose. We need a training system that is nurturing and without harassment or bullying, yet robust enough to prepare youngsters for the sort of tasks that they face in the brutal realities of Iraq or Afghanistan.
	We want the Government to ensure that there is a duty of care, but all hon. Members are fully aware that, in the end, we are training soldiers.

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his comments, but perhaps not all of them. On the question of Surrey police, we are talking about something that is a matter for the police. The fact that I have written to the chief constable to indicate what I think would be of benefit reflects a view that I have taken from the early stages—as my knowledge grew—that the reopening of the inquests would be desirable. It is not in my power to so direct. The Surrey police information may provide sufficient grounds to allow that to happen, but I do not know, because I have not seen it in detail. I cannot intrude in that matter other than to indicate my strong preference as to what should happen. I cannot direct on that matter.
	On the commissioner's role, the hon. Gentleman had an early view of my statement and I have set out what the remit of the commissioner would be. I have been careful in the response—I do not want to say that this tops and bottoms it or ends it. We are fortunate that we have the Armed Forces Bill where this matter will be ventilated and can be discussed and examined. I would not want to close down on any reasonable suggestion. However, I do not want to put in place or encourage anything that seeks to undermine the important role of the chain of command. That is why we have said that the independent commissioner would have the right of reporting to the commanding officer, the right of follow up in terms of finding out what happened as a result of all that, and, importantly, the right of access to Ministers and to report annually to Parliament. If there was a pattern developing, or even a significant case, it would be down to that individual to draw the Minister's attention to it if he felt that there was reluctance, unwillingness or blocking on the part of the commanding officer or the system itself. So, we have an insight into what is going on. That has not been there before. However, I will resist any attempt to undermine the independence of the commanding officer or their right to ensure that proper discipline is maintained in their unit. We have made a substantial move and, hopefully, it is to be welcomed and subject to further examination.
	Accommodation is a big issue; there is no question about that. That is why we have re-profiled a lot of our spending approaches to try to make sure that we can lift the quality of accommodation. We have a massive backlog to attend to. The moneys would not simply be available to anyone. We are not talking about a wish list, but about practicalities, given the hundreds of millions—if not billions—of pounds that would be required to improve that accommodation. We have a progressive programme to deal with all that. Although we can see the objectives of the recommendations, the delivery will take some time to achieve. That is what we have now set out to seek to achieve.
	I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the time to read our response to the recommendations—I accept that he has not had that opportunity. We set out the rationale. It is fairly long and I do not want to read it out in detail, other than to say this: we recognise that there is an issue and we are seeking to address it. We have best practice and very good training environments at Harrogate and Bassingbourn. We can see the quality that comes out of that type of training establishment, where there is a separation of the single young people, and the type of training that we can give them. Whether that can be matched across the whole of the training environment has to be judged in terms of what we are trying to train. We are talking about a soldier going into the front line. We have got to judge the quality and robustness of that training.
	I make a final point to the hon. Gentleman.Mr. Blake's report referred to the unsolicited comment of a young trainee in which he said that he felt that he was being mollycoddled. Soldiers react to being mollycoddled because they might be in the front line tomorrow, so that is why a balance has to be struck.

Kevan Jones: I often think that dealing with the Ministry of Defence is like pushing water uphill. We are slowly getting there, given the announcement of a commissioner, who will provide the independent oversight that is needed. Like the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), I am concerned that we have not been provided with details of the commissioner's role and remit. My right hon. Friend the Minister said that we needed more discussion, but following a report by the Select Committee on Defence and discussion of the Armed Forces Bill, is it not time to determine the detail of the commissioner's role? Unless we do so, we will be reluctant to support the proposal when we debate the Armed Forces Bill in the House. Unlike the hon. Member for Woodspring(Dr. Fox), I believe that it is vital that the commissioner should be independent. The expectation that he should be associated with the armed forces is quite wrong, so I urge the Minister not to appoint anyone who is connected in any way with the military chain of command.

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is critical, but I should be grateful if he allowed me to express my view. It is easy to provide headlines and expect someone else to deliver, which is exactly what the Select Committee recommended. It was a helpful recommendation, and I do not wish to diminish it. The first piece of legislation that I steered through the House as a Northern Ireland Minister dealt with the reform of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and one of the main issues that it addressed was the need to put in place an ombudsman to deal with police complaints. It took us a long time to achieve agreement, as my hon. Friend will accept, but it was not a case of pushing water uphill. It was a case of getting the best definition because it had to stand the test of time.
	We are fortunate that we have the Armed ForcesBill, which allows proper scrutiny through the parliamentary process, rather than a prescriptive definition, top and bottom, by a Minister, albeit a Minister such as I, who has a great deal of detailed knowledge of the subject. I am prepared to set out the very broad but very specific parameters of what we are seeking to do with the new position, and I want to hear what is said and whether we have gone far enough once we define it in the Bill.
	I can think of no better way of arriving at the best conclusion than having that whole debate in the open, rather than by ministerial edict. As regards being prescriptive, my hon. Friend said what should not happen. I am not responding to that, because I want to hear the arguments for and against. We have time to do it. We can do it through a form of legislation. We have the vehicle for that, fortuitously. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to participate in that debate.

Michael Penning: I am sure the Minister will agree that we need fair, robust and disciplined training for our armed forces. When I went through basic training as a 16-year-old soldier, one thing that we had then which we do not have now to address the myriad problems that young people have was trained soldiers in the barrack rooms with us throughout our basic training. When I recently visited the training regiment at Pirbright, several times while I was there the question was, "Would you like to have training soldiers in the rooms with you?" and the answer was, "Yes, we would", because it addresses the camaraderie and the training that they needed. Will the Minister consider that? He mentioned that we would debate the Armed Forces Bill when it returns from the other place. Can he confirm that we will have an opportunity to debate it in the House?

Adam Ingram: I hope I do not get the same admonition, Mr. Speaker.
	One of the aims that we seek to achieve with thenew accommodation blocks is a better spirit of camaraderie. One of the failings of single living accommodation was that it allowed individuals, trained or untrained, to live in an isolated room of their own. We have therefore reconstructed our approach so that there is now a common area and more integration. We need trained personnel close to all of that, but—at the risk of contradicting my earlier comment that it would be wrong of a Minister to try and impose a solution—it would have to be with a light touch, not a heavy touch. It must be carefully managed so that people grow and are not dragged up. People should grow naturally with best example, not forced example.

Adam Ingram: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not get the chance to put all her questions. I am also sorry to hear her comments about Surrey police and suggest that she take up the matter with the relevant Minister. It is a matter of regret that the families have not received a response, and I will see what more I can do in that particular area. On the experience of others, whether it involves Canadians, Australians or the Dutch, we have examined how we can best deliver our objectives. I have not had a discussion with the Canadian forces, but I have examined what is possible in terms of structure and therefore output.
	The window has been left slightly open because of the Armed Forces Bill. We have defined the broad parameters of what we are seeking to do, and our objectives are comprehensive and will make a substantial difference. If, however, other examples are brought into play during the process of consideration, then we must consider them and respond according to the normal democratic processes. There is no doubt in my mind that the debate in the other place on that issue will be intense.

Lembit �pik: Nicholas Blake clearly stated that if the Government refuse to establish an independent commissioner of military complaints, then he would call for a full, independent public inquiry into the Deepcut deaths. Is it not obvious that the Government have refused that specific recommendation and that years of co-operation and patience on the part of the parents have been paid back with secrecy and defensiveness by the authorities and a process that actually refers complaints back into the chain of command for action? Does the Minister recognise that he has left us no option but to force a full independent public inquiry, presumably with Nicholas Blake's support, without which the parents will receive few answers, little disclosure, no commissioner and no justice?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely on this matter, but a big gap has appeared, which I regret. Nicholas Blake did not make that point in his report and did not make it a condition, and only he can comment on whether he is satisfied or otherwise with our recommendations. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that Mr. Blake is not satisfied, the hon. Gentleman should wait to hear what, if anything,Mr. Blake says. I do not accept that there has been secrecy and defensiveness. I do not know how many statements I have made to the House or how much more transparency is required. Our actions have been extensive, and I think that we have gone a considerable way to meeting what the hon. Gentleman wants. The point underlying the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the chain of command should be stripped of responsibility.

Adam Ingram: I am trying to interpret what the hon. Gentleman has said in the same way in which he interpreted what Mr. Blake has said. If he is saying that putting the complaint back to the chain of command somehow undermines the quality of the decision-making process, I disagree fundamentally, and I will tell him why. The chain of command has to ensure proper discipline and structure in the organisation for which it is responsible. We cannot allow that to be transferred to someone else, even someone with a military background. We have rejected Mr. Blake's recommendation that someone with a civilian background should try to determine the right to go to legal process, because there is nowhere in our civil processes where that would apply.
	This matter has been given very careful consideration. I uphold the primacy of the chain of command. I recognise that it has made mistakes in the past and will do so in the future. It is not perfect, but that is not for the want of professionalism, commitment and a determination to deliver what is best. The hon. Gentleman's judgment should be based on how many recruits go through that training environment year upon year. It is not a broken regime. If anything, it is an exemplar for the rest of the public service, and it passes muster with anything internationally.

Adam Ingram: If I did not know that before, I certainly know it now, not only because of what the hon. Gentleman has said but because of the learning process that I have had to go through over the past five years in dealing with this issue. That is why more resources have been put into the training environment and why we corrected the decision made in past years. I am not making an adverse comment, but merely saying that a decision was taken that had to be reversed because it had not produced the right results, and we therefore had to find a new way of doing it.
	We are instituting the train the trainer environment and opening up a new school for all instructors because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the best soldier is not necessarily the best instructor and the best officer isnot necessarily the best person to run a training establishment. It is a question of finding the right people for the right roles. If someone needs to make up a deficiency in their knowledge base, that is what their training process will entail. It will lift their skills and knowledge and the subtleties that they have to apply in dealing with young people, and sometimes not-so-young people, as they put them through that training environment. I would argue that we have very high-quality training, although I know that the hon. Gentleman is not saying anything different. I agree, however, that we have to make it even better because of the demands that are now placed upon our service personnel.

Mark Pritchard: The introduction of the service complaints commissioner provides a new process by which people can make complaints, but it isa formal process which some recruits might find intimidating. Does the Minister agree that the Army chaplaincy plays a valuable role as regards complaints within the armed services? Is he aware that currently the Territorial Army is 26 undermanned as far as chaplains are concerned and that the regular Army is looking for 16 extra chaplains? What will he do to address that important issue?

Adam Ingram: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. Others should listen to the way in which the argument was presented. If the process that we are considering has to be triggered, that almost constitutes a failure because it means that all the other duty of care mechanisms that we have put in place will somehow not have picked up the problem. That is why we are investing so heavily not only in the chaplaincy but in all the other informal and formal structures so that people know that anonymous health lines are available, that they can go to Samaritans, the Womens Royal Voluntary Service and a range of contact points.
	The other important aspect is that all our instructors will be better trained to pick up the noises off. If there is a problem, they should tackle it quickly. If anything goes to the commissioner, that is, in a sense, a failure, assuming that the case is proven. It may not bea case could be anecdotal or not add up to anything. However, we need the protective mechanism so that, if people feel that nobody has been listening to themthat has been part of the complaint in the pastthat final recourse is available. It could end up on a Minister's desk. The process is therefore well rounded but it has to succeed at the bottom, not at the top. If it does not succeed at the bottom, we have a problem. I do not believe that we have a problem; we have issues to which we must attend, and we are doing that.
	I cannot provide a specific answer on the chaplaincywe do not have the power to dragoon members of the churches or of other faiths into uniform. However, I appreciate that it is an important part of what we do and I hope that the churches and other faith groups are examining how best they can help us.

John Bercow: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require that statements by local authorities relating to special educational needs are issued independently of decisions about the funding of facilities and services arising from such needs.
	In that context, I declare an interest as the father of a two-and-a-half-year-old boy who will almost certainly have special educational needs.
	Interest in special educational needs in the House since the general election has been reflected in no fewer than 93 written and oral parliamentary questions. In addition, although there has been no debate on the subject in Government time, three debates have been held on the issue, notably those initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on 22 June last year in Opposition time, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) on 29 November and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 7 March, whose debate covered Asperger's syndrome in her constituency.
	What are the central facts about special educational needs? There are currently 1,230,800 children with special educational needs, but without a statement, in this country. In addition, 242,600 children have special educational needs and a statement. Of course, the needs vary greatly. They can result from learning difficulties, sensory impairments or physical disabilities. It is important to understand that they can be moderate and one dimensional. However, they can also be severe, complex and multifaceted. We can be fairly sure of one fact in that labyrinthine field: there is no evidence to suggest that any reduction in the number of children with special educational needs is likely soon. Indeed, the evidence points overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. A continuing increase in the number of children with special educational needs is expected.
	It is therefore noteworthy and a source of concern that, as a result of direct Government encouragement, the number of new statements of special educational needs is in marked decline. In 1998, 35,650 new statements were issued; by 2004, the figure had fallen to 26,000. It is important for all right hon. and hon. Members to reflect and to come to a view on the statementing process.
	I want to make a number of observations that seem to be fair-minded and relevant. First, a great many parents regard a statement as a lever that they can pull, a source of comfort or a guarantee of assistance. I do not sniff at that; it is extremely important. However, large numbers of them are simultaneously gravely concerned by the weaknesses in the existing statementing process. To put it simply, the process is too bureaucratic, too adversarial, too time consuming, too expensive and, all too often, too vague. As a consequence of those failings in the system, too many children wait too long, are promised too little and receive even less.
	We can observe the evidence recently produced in a serious study by the National Autistic Society. It conducted a survey that showed that 31 per cent. of children, according to their parents, are not getting the help that has been promised in their statement, and that only 55 per cent. of children are receiving the speech and language therapy that their statement stipulates that they should receive. In the light of those statistics, it is perhaps unsurprising that 79 per cent. of the parents who appeal, in protest against that lamentable state of affairs, to the special educational needs and disability tribunalSENDISTare successful in their appeals.
	This is a serious situation. People have to wait a long time and are often promised less than they think is their due. They then find that they are not even to be given what they have belatedly and inadequately been promised. It is incredibly difficult even to enforce the entitlement that they have, in a very delayed fashion, been given. These are serious concerns.
	The second concern involves SENDIST itself. Thousands of parents appeal every year. They do so because they have been denied a statutory assessment of their child, or because they have been denied the issue of a statement for their child. They appeal because there is an insufficiency of specific support in their child's statement, or because they have been denied their preference of a school for their child.
	Significantly, increasingly and ominously, however, there is evidence of difference in success at the tribunals, depending on socio-economic status. To put it bluntly, someone who is educated, articulate and relatively deep-pocketed will do well at a tribunal because they make their appeal, they hire the solicitors, they secure the specialist reports and they fight the system. Those people are successful. However, people who are uneducated, inarticulate and have no money are less likely to go to a tribunal. If they do, they are less likely to succeed, because they are less likely to be able to afford or secure the specialist services that are often a prerequisite of success. They will fail. They will lose.
	The time has come to change the system, and I would like to make a number of specific suggestions in the context of adopting a new approach. First, we should dispense with statements and replace them with special needs profiles. The responsibility for crafting such profiles would fall to accredited assessors from the educational psychology profession. They would decide on the level of support that should be provided to the child, choosing from a number of tiers.
	Secondly, we need to establish a national funding agency separate from and independent of the arrangements outlined in my first proposal. The necessary payment would come from that funding agency, and it would go with the parent, on behalf of the pupil, travelling with him or her to the institution that he or she attends.
	My third proposal is that we establish a special educational needs standing commission. Its role would be to accredit the assessors, to hear appeals and to offer advicein the light of emerging practice and policyto the national funding agency about requirements and needs and the increase in public expenditure necessary to meet them.
	My central thesis is that that would be a real advantage over the present system, which is weak because local education authorities assess and decide, pay and provide. For the most part, they are in control of the whole process, and we need to make it a great deal more independent. We need to make it quicker and fairerindependent of the Government, independent of local authorities and independent of the sources of supply. That, surely, makes sense.
	I do not decry the very real efforts made in the field of special educational needs. It is a complex area, in which there is always a danger of generalisation. There is good practice, bad practice and indifferent practice. Every child is unique; each case is different; but there are serious weaknesses. I politely suggest to the Government that a real problem is now emerging: the desire to cut costs and the elevation of the useful tool of inclusion into some sort of dogmatic edict in every particular, which is grossly damaging and needs to be changed. We are talking not about guinea pigs in some giant experiment of starry-eyed social engineering, but about children who need help, more help and better help, and who need it now. My Bill will help to provide it, so I commend it with enthusiasm to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by John Bercow, Mr. Peter Bone, Mr. Douglas Carswell, Mrs. Nadine Dorries,Mr. Nick Gibb, Stephen Hammond, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Philip Hollobone, Kelvin Hopkins, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. George Mudie and Bob Spink.

Meg Hillier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the previous statement by the Minister of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made some inaccurate commentsunintentionally, I am sureabout the reasons behind the death at Deepcut barracks of my constituent's son. For the family's sake, I want that inaccuracy to be put on the record.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Work and Families Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of5th December 2005 (Work and Families Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendment
	1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Amendment shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent Stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from theLords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be broughtto a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move, that this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The Lords amendment was tabled by the Government to correct a minor drafting error in schedule 1, which amends section 80E of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At paragraph 38, line 32 the schedule currently reads:
	The employers on whom duties may be imposed by regulations under section 80AA or 80BB include not only employees exercising rights by virtue of that section and their employers.
	The paragraph then lists other people covered by the law. The correct wording is:
	The persons on whom duties may be imposed by regulations under section 80AA or 80BB include not only employees exercising rights by virtue of that section and their employers
	and so on.
	As well as not achieving the policy intention of including mothers as well as employers, the current wording of paragraph 38(3) does not make sense, as the definition of employer cannot include employees. It is clear that that was a minor drafting error made during the construction of the Bill. The error was unfortunately only noticed shortly before Third Reading in the other place, hence the requirement to make an amendmentat this late stage.
	I ask hon. Members to agree with the Lords in accepting the amendment, and I apologise to the House for any inconvenience caused.

Eleanor Laing: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on the excellent brevity of his first speech on this subject? May I astound the House by agreeing with him entirely in every word? This is clearly a drafting error. The Bill does not make sense the way that it stands and it must be corrected. I certainly do not oppose the Lords amendment. I will resist the temptation to go further into the rights and wrongs of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which, of course, was mostly right, not wrong, given its date. I entirely agree with the Minister and support the Lords amendment.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Administration Bill for the purpose of supplementing theOrder of 25th October 2005 (Electoral Administration Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day's sitting or at the moment of interruption on this day, whichever is the later.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely: 7 to 15, 61 to 75, 1 to 6, 16 to 60 and 76 to 132.
	 Subsequent Stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from theLords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be broughtto a conclusion one hour after their commencement. [Steve McCabe.]
	 Question agreed to.

[Relevant documents: First Joint Report from the Constitutional Affairs and ODPM: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committees,Session 2004-05, HC 243, on Electoral Registration; and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6647. Oraland Written Evidence, taken by the ConstitutionalAffairs Committee, Session 2005-06, on Electoral Administration, HC 640-i and 640-ii, and on Party Funding, HC 1060-i.]
	 Lords amendments considered.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 7, before clause 13, to insert a new clause Absent voting: personal identifiers.

Bridget Prentice: I have placed in the Vote Office an explanatory note on these Lords amendments that, I hope, will help hon. Members to wade through the 130-odd Lords amendments before us this evening. They simply explain what the Lords will do, rather than give any detailed background to them, but I hope that they will help us to move through the course of the debate.
	I ask the House to agree with the Lords in amendments Nos. 7, 9 to 15, 47 to 49, 59, 60, 79 to 81, 89 to 93, 95, 102, and 131, but to disagree with the Lords in amendment No. 8.
	Lords amendment No. 7 was tabled by Lord Elder and built upon by the Government. Taken together, the series of Lords amendments are designed to enhance the security of postal voting by establishing a scheme that provides for the use of identifiers by postal voters at elections. The amendments had support from all sides in the other place. They provide for the collection of personal identifiers from persons applying to vote by post or proxy. Postal and proxy vote applicants will be required to provide their date of birth and signature on application forms. The amendments provide for the retention of identifiers by electoral registration officers and set out the purposes for which they may be used.
	At elections, postal voters will be required to provide their signature and date of birth on the postal voting statement that they must complete and return with their postal vote ballot paper. All postal voters, including proxy postal voters, will be subject to that requirement. A postal ballot paper will not be deemed valid if the postal voting statement does not include both a signature and a date of birth. Furthermore, returning officers will be required to take steps to verify the signature and date of birth on that statement, which will involve checking that the identifiers provided on the postal voting statement correspond with those previously provided on the postal vote application. If they do not correspond, the ballot paper will be rejected. The detailed arrangements for checking postal voting statements will be set out in regulations. Under the amendments, there will be no change to the current voter registration arrangements. The amendments therefore remove from the Bill the provisions that would have allowed personal identifiers to be piloted and rolled out as part of the voter registration system.
	On Lords amendment No. 8, we have said previously that we accept the principle behind individual registration. We have also accepted the practical value that the use of personal identifiers might have in combating fraud. However, it is also an important principle that everyone who is entitled to register to vote is registered. Under-registration disfranchises individuals and skews the map of political representation. Northern Ireland is often cited on both sides of the debate. The main Opposition party has frequently called for us to introduce into Great Britain the tried and tested system of individual registration. Individual registration in Northern Ireland has had some benefits, especially for the perceived security of the process, but it is not true that the experience in Northern Ireland is an argument for that system to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom.
	When individual registration was first introduced in Northern Ireland, 120,000 entries dropped off the registera decrease of some 10 per cent. in those on the register. The 1,192,136 entries in August 2002 had decreased to 1,072,425 by December of that year. At the next canvass, the total number of entries fell slightly further to 1,069,160. The Government have taken steps to address that decline, first by reintroducing a period of one year's grace before entries are removed from the register, and secondly by introducing new primary legislation.

Chris Ruane: With regardto the Northern Ireland statistics showing that registration dipped as low as 82 per cent. andthen increased to 92 per cent., a registration rate of 92 per cent. on the UK mainland would not be acceptable. We want 100 per cent. registration. Anything that decreases registration should not go ahead.

Gordon Prentice: Will myhon. Friend remind the House of the Electoral Commission's stance on individual voter registration?

Bridget Prentice: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened. The amendments that I am asking the House to support will indeed address the points that he raised in relation to Bradford and elsewhere.
	I mentioned the Northern Ireland example. Weare also concerned about the drafting of Lords amendment No. 8. It makes several references to the role to be played by the Chief Electoral Officer. Outside Northern Ireland, there is no such officer; the role is played by local electoral registration officers. That would create a serious flaw in the operation of the proposed scheme.
	Individual registration has potential benefits forthe security of postal voting, particularly through the collection of personal identifiers such as signature and date of birth. That is why we included it in the Bill. We wanted to test the use of personal identifiers. Because the provisions have not yet gained the confidenceof Parliament, we have adopted the alternative compromise proposed by my noble Friend Lord Elder. As I have explained, the proposal targets the use of personal identifiers primarily at postal voting. It meets the security concerns about postal ballots, and deals with concerns about the impact of personal registration on the number of people registered to vote.

Bridget Prentice: I said at the outset that, in principle, we accept individual registration; we do not have a principled objection to it. However, it is clear that there are two issues that should be considered, the first of which is that the term of punishment for any offence relating to false registration will be increased from six months to 51 weeks. Some 3 million people are not on the register who should be on it, and if there were a 10 per cent. drop in registration in Great Britain, that would add another 4 million people to that figure. A register that has up to 7.5 per cent. of its eligible electors missing does not make a good register.
	The Bill includes a number of important changes to the way in which registration and elections will be run and the Government are confident that they will meet our objectives. However, we will keep the impact of this legislation under review and share the results of our evaluation with the House. This may also be an appropriate issue for the Constitutional Affairs Committee to consider, and we would welcome any such further scrutiny from it.
	We will also consider whether further evaluationmay be appropriate once the Law Commission has concluded its report on the use of a formal process of post-legislative scrutiny. The Government believe that this is the appropriate way forward, and I therefore hope that Members will reject the amendment.

Oliver Heald: It is an expensive, time-consuming and difficult process, and that there are as many as eight petitions says something, because that is a substantial number.
	Every authority that has examined this question has called for individual voter registration and personal identifiers. I strongly support Lords amendment No. 8, and I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hanham. The amendment simply requires a signature and a date of birth for everyone going on to the voting register. I am disappointed that the Government continue to drag their feet on this issue. I have always said that I prefer the system used in Northern Ireland, where national insurance numbers are used to verify registration. That is an excellent example to follow and the Government have crowed about that system asan outstanding success story. A consensus must be reached, and it could be reached around Lords amendment No. 8.
	The Government have already accepted that voters who apply for postal votes should have to give their date of birth and signature. That was a welcome concession, made in Lords amendment No. 7. However, if that is all right for postal votes, why cannot it be done more generally? Given that it is already accepted that two forms of identification are required for a postal ballot, why is not that an acceptable approach that could be used for identifying voters more widely? The amendment would require a signature and date of birth to be included in all voters' registration and not only in that of postal voters. I would still like to see national insurance numbers added as a personal identifier for voter registrationindeed, I have argued myself into the ground about itbut in the interests of trying to achieve a consensus, I am prepared to leave it until another opportunity arises to get it on the statute book. I hope that that will not be as a result of another scandal of the sort that we have seen in recent months. We have to secure personal identifiers for voter registration generally.
	Hon. Members will be aware of the Electoral Commission's campaign for individual voter registration and personal identifiers. From the outset of proceedings on the Bill, it has called for personal identifiers. The Government have gone some way toward that, and we all welcome Lords amendment No. 7. However, in the commission's briefing for this debate it says:
	The Commission is delighted that the House of Lords has voted to accept an amendment tabled by Baroness Hanham requiring applicants to provide signatures and dates of birth when registering to vote.
	The amendment introducing personal identifiers for postal voting was introduced by the Lord Elder, a Labour peer, and it had the support of my noble Friend Baroness Hanham and Lord Rennard, so we managed to reach agreement across the parties, which allapart from Labourwanted to make further progress. The recent alleged fraud in Coventry was the background to the debate in the other place and spurred them on. They did not want to see such things happening again. The Coventry example is just one in a long line of cases where identity has allegedly been impersonated at the polling station. The use of personal identifiers would go a long way towards protecting individuals from that kind of fraud.
	The Minister in the other place spoke in support of the principle time and time again. In Committee, she stated:
	collecting personal identifiers has the potential to improve security and integrity in the electoral process.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2006; Vol. 679, c. GC593.]
	At that stage she also expressed her strong views about making sure that forms requesting information from people should be simple and straightforward.
	Schedule 1 requires voters to sign for their ballot paper at the polling station. The amendment would therefore introduce a useful check against fraud. Those registering to vote would provide a signature that would go on the register, which would then provide a check of whether the person signing for the vote was the same person who had registered. In circumstances such as those that allegedly occurred in Coventry, that would be extremely useful. I do not see how the provision of a signature at the polling station will be much use if there is no register of the original signature in the first place. What is more, our amendment would save voters the worry of finding a legitimate counterfoil to prove their signature in any fraud investigation.
	There can be few legal forms that entitle one to do something, but do not involve a signature and the provision of simple details, such as date of birth. It is suggested by some that it would be so difficult that it would put people off registering to vote. However, those of us who take a close interest in these matters know that people fill in forms for almost every activity in life and that they almost always have to sign their name and give their date of birth. How difficult is it for people to sign their names? That question shows how pathetic it is that this important change is not being made by all-party agreement.
	During the Bill's passage through the House, the Government accepted that a person's signature and date of birth should be used for postal voting, so how can it be said that the same requirement is too hard to be used elsewhere? My voter registration form from the London borough of Lambeth says that any change of details must be backed up by a signature and a date of birth. Lord Rennard made the same point in the other place, but Lambeth is an example of a Labour council already doing something that I am calling for.

Chris Ruane: At present, between 4 million and4.5 million people are not registered to vote. Last September's report from the Electoral Commission found that, in the main, they were unemployed, on low pay and living in council or social housing. They also included a lot of young people and people from the black and ethnic minorities. Is the hon. Gentleman so unconcerned about under-registration simply because people from those groups do not vote Conservative?If they lived in Acacia gardens as opposed to Corporation close, would he pay more attention to under-registration?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman misunderstandsmy point. I was not talking about political parties canvassing, although I think that that is vital to our system. I was talking about council officersthe electoral registration officer and his teamcanvassing door to door to encourage registration. He might not have come across that, but it used to happen: large numbers of people were employed to go out and canvass for registration. I did it myself before becoming politically active.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's other point, part of the reason why people living in student accommodation and others in that age group do not register is that weor the Governmentstubbornly, or perhaps blindly, insist that the head of the household should be responsible for registration, so the authorities send the form only to the first person of whom they are aware living at that address. It may well be that, when the form arrives, it is simply tossed and four of the five people who are sharing the flat never hear anything about it. That is a problem that active canvassingreally going after those people and encouraging registrationcould help to solve. That is why I welcome later amendments in which we insist that electoral registration officers make a real effort.

Bob Spink: I thought that I would sit here and agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but I disagree with what he said about the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is not there to police; it is there to advise and to set out what the law is. It will not get involved in any way in policing accusations of fraud or questions that have been raised. That is for individual returning officers. Where the system falls down is that there is no way of controlling the actions of an errant, or even corrupt, electoral returning officer. That is where we need to strengthen matters.

Gordon Prentice: I understand that.
	The Electoral Commission takes a view on the electoral system. As I said a few moments ago, if it believes that the system needs improving in some way, it will make recommendations. It made specific recommendations in the case of individual voter registration. The Government have moved towards that in part, but not entirely. I was left reflecting on what the response of the Electoral Commission should be. The Electoral Commission has been turned over by the Government before, when its recommendations have been put to one side. My view is that if the Electoral Commission thinks that this matter is important enough, its members ought to resignor Sam Younger ought to resign. That would make us all pay attention. If members of the Electoral Commission were to resign en masse, there would not be a dozen or two dozen people in the Chamber; it would be packed to the gunnels to discuss the issue.
	The Government's position turns on the whole business of increasing voter turnout. I believe, as I said a few moments ago, that we need to think laterally about that. I would reward people. There is an alternative, put forward by our colleague, Lord Kinnock: compulsory voting. I am not in favour of compulsory voting, but that is one way forward. I prefer to reward people for going on the electoral register and to recognise that they are participating in a civic process, which should be rewarded in some way by the state. That has never been done here, and a lot of people probably think that the idea is zany and a bit eccentric. However, we must consider such solutions if we are to address the point that my friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) constantly makes about the number of young people and people from ethnic minorities and other groups who are not represented on the electoral register.
	I take the point made by the Conservative Front Bench about international observers. I want international observers to policeif I may use that wordour domestic elections in the United Kingdom, but it is a sad state of affairs that I think that that is necessary.

Gordon Prentice: If the Electoral Commission and international observers are recommending that, and given that the Government accept the principle, but will not embrace the system for practical reasons, the argument is made.
	I rely on my own experiences on this matter, as I do on many other issues. At the time of the last general election, my Liberal Democrat opponent, Shazad Anwar, had two sisters and a brother registered at his home in Pendle, although the election literature referred to only Shazad Anwar and his wife, Shaista. We checked the electoral registers for Pendle and next-door Burnley, where Shazad Anwar's father lived. The same two sisters and the brother were also registered in Burnley. Exactly the same thing had happened the year before: two sisters and a brother were registered at Kibble grove in Brierfield and the same two sisters and a brother were registered in Burnley.
	When the matter was drawn to the attentionof my Liberal Democrat opponent, he told the  Nelson Leader, just a few days before the general election on29 April 2005:
	It was a mistake. My father must have returned the Burnley forms without omitting their names. My two sisters and brother live with my wife and I.
	How one can send off a registration form without realising that it records people who do not actually live in a house beats me.
	That situation brings me back to a point made by the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) with which I agree 100 per cent. In the 21st century, we should not be relying on the quaint 19th-century concept of heads of household. It is absolutely absurd in this day and age that we expect one person who is designated as the head of household to certify that other people in the house should be on the electoral register. I am disappointed that the Government and the Minister have taken such a view on Lords amendment No. 8 because we are missing a great opportunity to clean up our electoral system.

Simon Hughes: We are having an important debate that has carried on up and down the corridors of the building since the Bill was introduced. I pay tribute to myhon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome(Mr. Heath), who is in the Chamber. He started looking after the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and will continue to help me today as part of his other responsibilities. He and our colleagues at the other end of the building have been extremely diligent in working with Members of other parties to try to ensure that we get this matter andas far as possibleelectoral law right.
	Although I have picked up the baton on the Bill, I had an interest in it before and kept a watching brief. I pay tribute to the three Ministers involved in the passage of the Bill, who have been assiduous in ensuring that we all at least understand what we are trying to achieve, even if we sometimes disagree: the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), who is in the Chamber; the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is my neighbour; and Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who looked after the Bill in the Lords.
	The controversial aspect of the group of amendments is the fact that the Government wish to persuade the House to disagree with the Lords in Lords amendment No. 8. I will set down our position immediately. We will vote with the Conservative Front Bench and, I anticipate, some Labour Members to uphold what the Lords did when they voted by a majority of 23 for the principle of individual voter registration not just for postal votes, but for other votes as well. My noble Friend Lord Rennard set out why we would do that. We have adopted that as a party policy position and it would be impossible not to support it when it came before us as a proposition in law. So we will vote to keep the Bill as the Lords amended it and will vote against the Government.
	I understand the issue acutely. I want the hon. Member for Ruabon

Simon Hughes: I am indeed, and I have been there often. I just could not remember the latest title of the hon. Gentleman's important constituency.
	I understand the issue that exercises the hon. Gentleman, as it exercised the Minister of State and as it exercises me. There is still something rottennot functioningin the state of electoral registration in Britain and in the state of our democracy. One option is compulsory registration. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) alluded to it, and it is an argument that people have made. I have resisted it. I do not agree with it, and nor do my colleagues. However, even that would not be perfect because we could have compulsory registration in theory, but not everyone who was meant to register would do so. Let us not delude ourselves. It would not mean that every person who was entitled to a vote voted, let alone was registered. In theory, however, we would get a bigger turnout.
	Part of the reason why compulsory registration is not a good system is that it conceals the positive or negative response to the electoral process. Turnout goes up in close or important elections, and we can see that. If politicians are not responding to the electorate well, turnout goes down. In the local elections in our borough of Southwark last month, the turnout varied from something in the order of 25 per cent. in one ward to more than 50 per cent. in another. It depends on local circumstances.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman mentions the local elections last month. He has an enlightened view on maximising electoral registration. What would he say to the leading Liberal Democrat on Islington council who, when asked for his group's support for an electoral registration drive before those elections, said that it would not support it and that is how it wins elections?

Simon Hughes: I do not know the quote and would want to check it, out of loyalty to my friend. If that is what he said, it is not my view. I am on the record as saying to the Minister of State, across the Floor of the House, that we need much more effective ways of getting people on to the list. I will suggest two.
	I share the view of the hon. Member for Pendle. There is serious merit in considering the idea that we might give somebody a discount on their council tax for being on the electoral register. I take the view, as hon. Members would expect me to, that we have moved on from the patrician days when somebody registerson behalf of the household. We need individual responsibility, with people registering at the age of 18. However, we need to do many other things to get people on the list. First, as people cross the threshold into voting agemy party takes the view that that should be 16, not 18they should be automatically registered from the beginning by the institution, college or school that they attend.
	Secondly, from the moment that they are on the register, there could be an incentive of a discount on council tax. It would be small, but worth having, like the vouchers for computers for schools. Vouchers for small amounts are worth having and we redeem them. I got some in the paper the other day to give me free editions of World cup posters, supplements and so on. It is 40p off and worth having.
	Thirdly, and most importantly, as I have told Ministers before, the only way in which we can achieve a significant increase in annual registration is to conduct an annual campaign. In February, which is usually 28 days long, but is 29 days long every fourth year, we should count down through newspaper, radio and television adverts to democracy day on 1 March. During that period, campaigners sign up voters at bus stops, and outside railway stations, supermarkets, pubs and football grounds in a huge effort to increase registration. Such a campaign should happen regularly because, with the best will in the world, canvassers are never entirely successful in their efforts at registration. When I was in the Minister's constituency on the day of the marathon, canvassers were struggling to find addresses in Blackheath. I remember canvassing in the Northfield by-election and trying hard to find addressesit took me 20 minutes to go round the back of a block of flats, up a ladder and over a roof before I found Nos. 63 to 92 Bristol road south. It is sometimes difficult to find addresses but, when one does so, lots of people are not in, as more and more individuals do not keep conventional hours.

Chris Ruane: They are working under a Labour Government.

Simon Hughes: Or they are travelling on EasyJet. They are certainly not in, even if they are not working. They may be in bed and not answering the door, because they think that the caller is someone else.
	Trying to encourage people to register is a serious issue. In my constituency, there is a serious problem of under-registration. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd is right, as is the Minister of State, that the poor and less well-educated, the young and people from black and minority ethnic communities are usually significantly under-represented.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman could add to those under-registered groups people who live in houses of multiple occupation, which are common in my constituency, many other seaside towns and inner-city areas. How will a proposal for individual registration assist efforts to put such people on the register?

Chris Ruane: They are trying to get away from the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Hughes: In case that is reported in  Hansard, they are not doing sousually, they want to stay and upgrade. About 25 per cent. of people in my constituency move because they want a bigger place or choose to live somewhere else. We must therefore make it easier for them to re-register, and we should not rely on a canvass officer bumping into them on their doorstep, as that does not usually happen. The chance of their being in when the officer comes round so that they can fill in the form is very small indeed.

Simon Hughes: I am sure the numbers are significant, but by definition one does not know what they are. Of course I do not want the number of registered voters reduced. I share the concern about what we should do, and I have suggested various ways of increasing registration.
	The other side of the argument is how we avoid fraud and the abuse of the system. Every year when I look at my electoral register, I know for a fact that names are repeated and that the names of people who have moved or who have died still appear. It is not an up-to-date list that records the position at the beginning of the electoral year. Again, that is more often the case in urban than in rural areas.
	On balance, the argument should be that people must take, and know that they have to take, personal responsibility. The starting point should be that they register either once or annually, and that they register in their own name. The question is whether the proposal that the Lords have passed into law and which is included in the Bill will have a significant downward effect on voting. The fact that the form goes in with the person's signature and date of birth substantially reduces the likelihood of that. If there were no other circumstances, my judgment is that voting would not be affected much, if at all, for the reason given bythe hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire(Mr. Heald) and others.
	On any official form people generally expect to sign their name and, although I am not in favour of data being collected unnecessarily, often give their date of birth. For people who have come from the developing world and may not know their date of birth, it is traditional that they give as their date of birth 1 January of the year in which they were born. That convention is generally accepted. There is no problem with people who do not know their specific date of birth, or who have come as refugees and do not have their birth certificates.
	We need to watch closely what happens. The Northern Ireland experience is relevant, but not entirely parallel. We are trying to overcome all the shortcomings and defects with a single piece of legislation. We want a better campaign to recruit people on to the list. We want to give them incentives to go on the list. We want to make it easy for young voters to go on for the first time. We may want to do one other thing, which is where the difficulty has arisen.
	At present, electoral registration officers have the choice whether to keep somebody on the list at the end of the year or take them off if they cannot check their eligibility. We need a better system to ensure that people can confirm that they are where they used to be, without necessarily having to go through the rigmarole of filling in the form, signing it and providing their date of birth. Suppose someone is away when the form arrives. A business man in my constituency, for example, went to India the other day. He may want to vote, always votes, but was not at home at the time. He needs an easy way of checking whether he is on the list. There is a package of things that we need to do, but we must avoid what most brings the system into disreputefraud and abuse of the system.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman said that he supports the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of worthwhile incentives for people to register, but he will not want to ignore the significant cost that would be associated with that. Even the worthwhile sum of, say, 10 per registration would mean 750,000 in a typical constituency, and2 million in a London borough containing two and a half constituencies. Ought that not to be funded centrally, because it is in the national interest that we have the highest level of registration possible?

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome has watched the Bill closely from the beginning, and he says that it will help with that matter. Nobody is pretending that we will get a perfect system after the Bill is enacted, but a lot of the proposals, which come from the Electoral Commission, the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission and other places, concern that process.
	We should do much better in modern Britain, to which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has referred. For example, why do we not have lots of people out on the streets in towns such as Blackpool in February, which I have been told is the last month in which it is manageable to conduct such activities in time for a May election? We may not get people to fill in forms at midnight on a Friday, but it is possible to catch them at the bus stop on their way to work. We must try very hard by, for example, visiting FE colleges, guesthouses and businesses. We should also use technology by asking people for their e-mail addresses in order to check annually whether we have got their residential addresses right, which might be more convenient for them.
	We also need to keep the system under review. After next year's local elections in England and the elections in Scotland and Wales, the local elections and London elections in the following year and the European elections across the United Kingdom in the year after thatthere will probably be a general election in that period, toowe should be able to see whether the proposals have had the effect that we all want or whether we are still failing. If we are still failing, we may need to do other things, but we should start from the basis that people should have to start the ball rolling themselves by signing and submitting a form.
	We need to agree a convenient system for keeping people on the register. The process should be led by the customerthe voterrather than by bureaucracy.

Simon Hughes: That is one area in which zero tolerance is appropriate. People should know that if they abuse the system by which we run our democracy, they are at risk of prosecution, conviction and, potentially, serious and exemplary punishment. If the person involved is locally elected or holds office inthe community, one would expect an exemplary punishment to be imposed.
	There are currently eight petitions on that point, but that may be the tip of the iceberg, because it is difficult to launch an electoral petition. I am sure that there are many other places in which the electoral register and those who voted did not accurately reflect who turned out on election day.

Chris Ruane: I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that Labour Members are as concerned as any others about electoral fraud but we need to get things in perspective. When I tabled parliamentary questions on the number of cases of electoral fraud at local and parliamentary level, I was told that there were one or two a year out of an adult population of 45 million. That is one or two too many. On the other side of the balance, 4.5 million are currently not registered to vote. That is without having put in place any barriers whatsoeverno date of birth, no signature and no national insurance number. Every additional barrier that one puts in front of the registration process will result in additional people not being registered.

Chris Ruane: It is correct. Registration in Northern Ireland dipped to a percentage in the low 80s, and after a registration drive it went up to 92 per cent.
	In the UK, with 4.5 million people missing from the register, the figure is 92 per cent., so we are starting from the base that Northern Ireland is currently at. Any additional barriers put in place will reduce that percentage. In Northern Ireland, 92 per cent. is an average. In many of the Belfast seats, which probably include the poorest communities in the whole of the UK, registration is at 70 per cent. In my constituency, the poorest registration area is central Denbigh, at76 per cent. Some wards in Aberystwyth have 50 per cent. registration. That is completely unacceptable. We need to get those people on to the register. If we start to introduce barriers such as signatures, dates of birth and national insurance numbers, we will keep on adding to the number of people who are unregistered. We might go from 4.5 million to 7.5 million unregistered people, who will be concentrated in the poorest communities in the UK. We do not have a fully functioning democracy if 7.5 million of the most dispossessed people are off the register.

David Heath: We have already established that we all want maximum registration, but I am deeply worried by what Labour Back Benchers are saying. Yesterday, we were told by a Labour Back Bencher that people on council estates had a higher propensity to commit crime; now, thehon. Gentleman is making the deeply patronising assumption that because someone lives in a deprived area, they cannot sign their name in order to get a vote. I do not accept for one moment that that is a barrier, and if he insists that it is, he is basing his entire premise on a fiction.

Chris Ruane: They are not my opinions but those of the Electoral Commission, which is put on a pedestal by the hon. Gentleman. When it carried out detailed research on unregistered peopleits findings were reported last Septemberit found that most unregistered people are unemployed, low paid, in council housing, black or ethnic, or young. That matches my experience. When I ask for a breakdown of the electoral registration percentages in my wards, I find that the poorest wards are those most affected, and that the poorest streets in those wards have the greatest under-registration. We need to get those people back on to the register. It might suit the political advantage of the Conservatives, or indeed the Liberal Democrats, to keep 7.5 million people off the electoral register

Chris Ruane: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remark that I quoted earlier. When one of the leading Liberal councillors on Islington council was asked to support an electoral registration drive before this year's local elections, he said: We will not support itthat's how we win elections.

Chris Ruane: As I said, even without providing a signature, date of birth or national insurance number, 4.5 million are not registered, and any additional barrier will increase that amount.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the core reasons for a substantial number of people not being registered is alienation from the political process, not difficulty in registering, which is simple? If parallel, extra effort went into the registration process, would he be happier with the proposal from the other place, of incorporating individual registration as an additional barrier?

Chris Ruane: I agree. Local authorities' allocation of resources needs to be examined carefully. I tabled a parliamentary question which asked for the amounts of money spent by each local authority in England on electoral registration to be specified. The answer stated that the figures are not collected centrally. I asked my Labour Assembly colleague in Wales to table the same question. The information is collected centrally in Wales and, of the 22 authorities, lo and behold, those that spent the most per capita on registration had the best registration rates and those that spent least had the worst rates.
	The Bill allocates an extra 17 million of resources to electoral registration. I ask the Under-Secretary to consider the matter carefully, because that extra money has not been ring-fenced but will be given as part of a local government settlement. I believe that, if17 million of a budget of, for example, 120 billion is not ring-fenced, local authorities, perhaps of a different political persuasion, that have no interest in electoral registration, could cream it off. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to look into that because registration is not only for local government elections but for European and parliamentary elections. The money should be ring-fenced.
	Some members of political parties throughout the country will try to preserve their positionsas council leaders, cabinet members and so onin a local authority and will not want more poorer people on the register who may threaten their incomes and livelihoods. We need to deal with local authorities that are dogmatic about the matter. When we say, These are our new standards, but they say, We won't obey them, and when we say, Here is the money, but they say, We won't spend it, we need a last resort. We need to tell truculent, politically motivated authorities, We've given you the resources. Here are the new guidelines. If you don't use them, we'll give you one of three options. Because electoral registration is so poor, we'll take the responsibility from you and give it either to a neighbouring authority or the Electoral Commission, or we'll privatise it. We need to be as blunt as that with local authorities that refuse to implement the proposed legislation.

Robert Syms: We have got on to a bit of a rollercoaster with postal voting. Like many hon. Members, when I first became involved in politics, we made a fetish of making it almost impossible for people to get a postal vote for an election because, by the time one had got around to trying to register someone, the date had passed.
	I have therefore welcomed the general trend of making it easier for people to obtain postal votes. However, the Government clearly went too fast, in the teeth of opposition by the Electoral Commission. There have been several incidents of fraud, and public confidence has been knocked to the point where one or two people whom I know have been put off voting by post because they feel that the system is not as robust and trusted as it once was. I therefore welcome amendment No. 7 and the Government's acceptance of it, because it is sensible to move to a system whereby people have to give their date of birth and signature.
	I wish to raise some technical points. Under our system, we always involve political parties. As we all know, at the count, several ballots are questionable, and at the end, the returning officer calls the agents or candidates over and they go through the 20, 30, 50 or 100 that are not entirely clear. Although the final decision rests with the returning officer, whether something is counted or not depends on nods and assent from the political parties. The Under-Secretary said in her opening remarks that returning officers would check the ballots against their records and that rejection of ballots would be up to them. I presume that the political parties will still be included in the process.
	At the end of the process of verifying postal votes, the handwriting on some will raise questions,we all receive things through the post that are not entirely clear, and they are put in a pile. If the returning officer intends to reject something, the political parties are included at that point. Of 8,000 postal votes, there may be a genuine concern about the accuracy of a signature on 200 of them. In such cases, I personally would like the agents or the candidates to be involved in the process so that they can see how the returning officer is making decisions. So if there were widespread fraud or concerns about a number of the ballots, the political parties could be very much part of the process of dealing with that, and would not then be surprised if someone jumped up at the end of it to say, I've rejected 1,000 ballots. They would have been able to see the process taking place, which is important.
	It is a pity that the Government will not accept Lords amendment No. 8, because individual registration is the way to go. We have talked in the debate about benefit, and there are benefits involved in being registered. Anyone who goes into Dixon's or Curry's and tries to get credit will know that one of the ways of judging whether they are worthy of getting credit to buy a hi-fi system or a TV is whether their name and address pop up in a search of the electoral register. However, I accept the argument that if we make the registration process more complicated, we might put people off. That is why, if we accepted Lords amendment No. 8, we should also have to have a package of measures to encourage people to register under the new system.
	We have all had experience of electoral registration departments. They are usually underfunded and overworked. They have some very good quality people working in them, but this issue is hardly the highest priority of most local authorities, which are struggling to deal with money and personnel and consequently have other priorities. One of the most productive things that we, as politicians across the House, could do would be to ensure that registration offices were better funded. Sometimes, when I look at the glossy brochures produced by the Electoral Commission, I think that some of that money would be better spent on registering voters at the sharp end.
	I am attracted to the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Why not give people some benefit for registering, beyond the one that I have just mentioned in regard to obtaining credit? It could be a lottery ticket, premium bonds or whatever. That could form part of a successful national campaign. It is in the national interest to get people to register.

Clive Betts: Obviously, I am not in favour of bogus people being on any register. However, I am concerned that the present system allows for a massive amount of under-registration of real people, and that even more people might not register if we pursue the issueof personal identifiers and personal individual registration in the present circumstances. I want to see the most secure voting system possible, and I am in favour in principle of individual registration. I want us to get there in due course, but I want that to happen at a time when the level of registration is much higher, when more of the real people who are currently missing from the register are on it.
	We can all go out and see, sometimes in local authorities of our own political persuasion, that the effort put into electoral registration amounts only to sending out two forms to households. In many cases, the forms do not get returned, but the system then gives up on those individuals. There are local authorities across the country that does not think that this is a priority. They do not put money into it, and most councillors are not awfully interested. All right, they have other things to dothey have education and social services systems to run and the environment to look after. Those are very big issues. The councillors concerned get lots of letters from their constituents about them, and they quite rightly respond to them.
	Electoral registration often comes quite far down the list and, provided that there is no specific requirement for it to be put on the agenda and for electoral registration officers to carry out specific duties that can be monitored and scrutinised by the local council and the Electoral Commission, we shall continue to have the system that we have today. I accept that the Bill takes us forward in regard to trying to get the levels of registration up.
	I hope that the Minister will give us reassurance on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. If we are putting extra money into the system, how can we be sure that it will be spent on the system? Some local authorities will take the grant and use itfor other purposes. How can we be sure that the70 millionand there will be questions as to whether that is enoughis spent on improving the system?
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern whether, even if we improve the level of canvassing, it will really catch the people that we are worried about, who do not fill in or send back the forms. It is that much harder when we are dealing with people living in houses in multiple occupation.

Chris Ruane: On targeting people who are the most difficult to get to register, will my hon. Friend reflect on a suggestion from Wales? Public or voluntary bodies that target socially excluded people on council estates, such as black and ethnic minorities or people on low pay, could ask, And how about registration?, while carrying out their other work. Different bodies that are already active and have gained the trust of people in the community could also help with registration.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Electoral registration officers should be imaginative in how they go about encouraging registration. Let us increase the canvass as well, although that will not do anything like 100 per cent. of the job. We have to deal with trying to get data and information from other sources, and that is in the Bill. When the data protection people gave evidence to the Select Committee hearings, they were not worried about cross-matching data provided that it was clear from the initial collection what purpose it would be used forthat is the issue.
	There is a genuine concern not only that electoral registration officers are not currently cross-matching data to which they have access within the local authority, but that they may need to access data outside the authority. In some cases, local authorities wanting to obtain data on young people becoming 18 can go to their own schools. In my constituency, most young people becoming 18 are based in the college, which is outside the local authority, rather than a school within it. How can we stop the problem of bias in the system, which means that data can be captured in some authorities but not in others?
	Stock transfers of houses are another problem. Local authorities can access data on their own council tenants before such a transfer, but I am not sure whether they can afterwards. I do not know, but the question has to be answered. Housing associations are sometimes set up to take over stock transfer properties and they take over documentation and data about tenants with them. Those are the sort of problems that have to be dealt with. How can we ensure that access to data and cross-matching goes wider than the local authority, into the rest of the public sector and probably outside it into organisations such as the utilities and the Post Office?
	I now come to the crucial point. I believe that the Bill is a halfway house in a number of senses. Eventually, we want to get to individual registration, but we want to do so with a much fuller registration system in which we can be certain of getting into the higher 90s per cent. of registration figures, just like the Australians who reach 98 per cent. They do not rely on canvassing as the primary means of drawing up the register; rather, they rely on data from a range of sources. They rely on the utilities, postal services, local authorities and other bodies to give information to electoral registration officersin Australia, there is an electoral commission for each state. All the information from those bodies is used to establish when people have moved in or out of properties, when people have become 18 or died and so forth. They check whether the information is correct and draw up the data on that basis.
	The Australians ask why, in this country, we bother with annual registration when we get forms back, by and large, from people who have lived in a property for 20 years, rather than capturing data from people who change their property regularly, sometimes annually, particularly in the private rented sector. The Australians concentrate on households where the information has changed from one year to the next. They follow that up closely and ensure that it benefits the registration process. Better use is made of registration officers' time because their efforts are spread throughout the year rather than for three or four months with little concentration of effort for the rest of the year.
	We have a lopsided system that, to use the currently in-vogue jargon, is not fit for purpose. The Bill is a great step forward in giving more powers and responsibilities to electoral registration officers, but it takes us only part of the way there. I would like us to think about consulting on a new Bill, perhaps in three or four years' time, which deals with how best to move towards the Australian system, while tightening up the security of the voting system by taking individual registration into account.

Clive Betts: The reality is, of course, that there is a legal requirement for people to register, so I am not sure whether consulting people on whether they want to register is the legal position. I am in favour of universities co-operating in the business of registration. In some cities, one university co-operates and another does not. That creates an imbalance in the figures. I am in favour of electoral registration officers being ableto gain access to information from universities. Co-operating in a process that involves a legal requirement to register is something that should be encouraged. Electoral registration officers should have access to that information, and universities and others ought to have a responsibility to provide it.
	I am sure that my final point will not receive any agreement from Opposition Members. We can make improvements with the Bill, but not necessarily reach the ideal position. When we come to the further Bill, which I hope will come about in three or four years' time, we will be developing a form of registration that will be ideal for the purposeit goes with the creation of the identity card scheme. That will eventually provide the basis on which we can create an accurate register [ Interruption. ] If Opposition Members are concerned about voter fraud and people trying to register twice or three times, they should consider the fact that a national identity card register, with only one identity for every individual, is a sure-fire way to get 99.9 per cent. registration on the most secure basis possible. I hope that Opposition Members will eventually understand that point.

John Horam: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) latterly proposed, perhaps not wholly seriously, a rather imaginative idea for advancing his cause. I agreed with much of his speech, frankly, especially on the need to improve our data, and he has some imaginative ideas about how to do so. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made similar points in saying that many people are not on the electoral register.
	I understand where Labour Members are coming from, but do they not recognise that, in effect, we politicians are bound, to some extent, to be biased on this issue one way or another. My hon. Friends and I are perhaps more concerned about fraud; Labour Members are perhaps more concerned about under-representation. However, the fact is that the Government contracted out such things to the Electoral Commission, which is an independent body, and it came up with a view of how we should look at our electoral system. It made suggestions and recommendationsfor example, on individual registration and using personal identifiers on a larger scaleand the Government were willing to accept them.
	The Government found a way out of such problems by using an independently established body, which can take an objective view. That body has existed for five or six years. The problem with the proposals from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe) is that, once again, they kick things further and further into the future. Do we want to go on for ever trying to improve or change what we have got? Are we no longer prepared to listen to a perfectly respectable independent body, which the Government set up? It seems a great pity that the Government are not prepared to accept its advice and suggestions.

Bridget Prentice: This has been an excellent debate, which, as expected, has reflected the strong views held on both sides of the House.
	On the question of fraud, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) mentioned yet again the judge who referred to our system as being like that of a banana republic. I remind him that that unfortunate and terrible phrase was used about the situation before 2004, and a number of measures have been put in place since then. On the whole, therefore, the elections this year reflect that we have tightened up on the abuses that took place in Birmingham.
	I hope that every Member of the House believes in zero tolerance in response to anyone who abuses the system through fraudulent registration or voting. That is why the Bill increases the penalties for such behaviour. Several Members referred earlier to the registration form being sent to the head of household. In fact, it is not sent to the head of householdwe do not use such Victorian termsbut to the occupier.
	On the issue of fraud versus the register, which seemed to be a theme throughout the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) referred to petitions. At present, eight petitions are before the courts, four of which are about election fraud, while the other four are about other election issues. The Coventry petition relates to about 10 electors, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd rightly pointed out, should be compared with the 3.5million to 4 million people who are not on the register. Therefore, while we all agree that fraud is bad and dangerous, we should look at it from the perspective of the number of elections that took place this year, the number of people involved in those elections, and the fact that a huge number of people are not yet on the register. That is why we have approached the issue as we have done. We have tried to be proportionate and to strike a balance, which is why we have accepted the Lords amendments on identifiers for postal votes.
	I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said, apart from his comments about personal identifiers. As he and I represent inner-London seats, we know exactly the problems that people face in getting on the register. It is not a case, as his hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, of being patronising about those living on council estates or in houses in multiple occupation, the unemployed, young people and black and ethnic minorities. Their disfranchisement, as we know, relates not just to the register but to a variety of issues, and their disfranchisement from the register arises in a sense from all of those. It is therefore important that we try to get those people on to the register, as well as doing all the other things on the Government's social exclusion agenda.

Simon Hughes: I realise that the Minister is approaching the end of her speech, but may I ask her to consult on another matter? People become very frustrated when, having turned up at a polling station, they discover that they are not on the register. At that moment, they ought to be given a form and asked to fill it in and leave it there, or at least given a form to take away. If we could make people's bad experiences at poling stations far less frequent, gradually over the years there would be a more positive response from those who currently feel that they are not wanted.

Bridget Prentice: Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 were introduced following pressure from both Houses for an increase in the number of descriptions that a party can register with the Electoral Commission. The original number was five, which was the number recommended by the Electoral Commission. That would allow, for example, one description for each of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and one for the United Kingdom as a whole. The Liberal Democrats introduced the amendments in another place. They sought to increase the number of descriptions to 12 because that equals the number of nations and regions in the United Kingdom, and so that parties could register descriptions such as London Liberal Democrats, East Anglian Conservatives, or Yorkshire and Humberside Labour. I therefore recommend that the House accept those amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 64 to 72 fulfil the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) on Third Reading in this House. Members may recall that amendments moved then became clause 59, and that they removed the need for duplication in reporting of donations, but for MPs only.
	By way of brief background, schedule 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 sets out, among other things, the requirement that holders of elective office should report the donations that they have received to the Electoral Commission, which then publishes them. That has the effect that MPs, MEPs, Members of devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the UK have to report donations to both the Electoral Commission and to the relevant register of members' interests of the body of which they are a member. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, chaired by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire(Sir George Young)to whom I express my gratitude for his help in this matterexpressed concern about the duplication, referring to it in a report published on 20 July 2005.
	Lords amendments Nos. 64 to 72 remove the requirement of dual reporting for holders of relevant elective office. That means that holders of the relevant elected office would not have to report any donations received to the Electoral Commission, whether the donations were received in their role as the relevant elected officer or in their role as a member of a registered political party. Of course, as with the provisions already included in clause 58, the Electoral Commission will retain the obligation to record any details it receives from the relevant registers of members' interests. The commission will continue to supervise compliance with the regulatory system as set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
	The House should note that this provision can be commenced only once the Electoral Commission is content that the relevant authorities have arrangements in place to ensure that the commission is still able to maintain an accurate register. I hope that hon. Members will see that as an appropriate balance between requiring transparency and removing bureaucratic duplication. The amendments are supported by the Electoral Commission, as well as relevant bodies, including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England.
	Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 75, 103, 110 to 122 and 126 to 129, on the reporting regime for loans, fulfil the commitment that I made to the House on 20 March that the Government would table amendments to the Bill to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans that they receive. There are issues relating to the funding of political parties that go beyond the disclosure of loans and the review bySir Hayden Phillips will deal with those. We have tabled these amendments now because there is broad agreement between the political parties and the Electoral Commission as to what should be done. This Bill presented us with an opportunity to act immediately in seeking to deliver the same openness for loans as currently exists for donations. I was heartened by the consensus on the principles of seeking to achieve greater openness and transparency in relation to significant loans afforded to political parties, individual members, members' associations and holders of relevant elective office.
	The amendments take the form of a new part 4A of, and schedule 6A to, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, or PPERA.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend is right. All hon. Members need to take some responsibility for this and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire recognised that on behalf of the Standards and Privileges Committee. That is one reason why we have had such openness and consensus on the issue.
	Part 4 of and schedule 6 to PPERA provide a system for the regulation of donations to political parties. That regime requires all donations over 5,000 to a political party to be reported to the Electoral Commission, and ensures that donations can be made only by individuals or organisations with a sufficient connection to the United Kingdom. It has been accepted that those requirements have brought transparency and openness to the making of donations, which is why we have chosen the same regime for loans. Indeed the new provisions deviate from the requirements for donations only where necessary to reflect the difference between a loan and a donation. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it makes sense to build on the success of the existing regime to try to achieve the same level of openness regarding loans.
	Before coming to the more detailed aspects of the regime as set out in the new sections and schedule, it might be useful to remind the House of the four main features. First, the reporting requirement is triggered when a loan exceeds the initial reporting thresholdof 5,000 or the subsequent reporting threshold of 1,000. Such loans, whether made on commercial or less than commercial terms, will have to be reported to the Electoral Commission. That will be at quarterly intervals, and at weekly intervals during a general election period. Secondly, all loans extant on the day that the provisions come into force would have to be disclosed, and any taken out thereafter. Thirdly, a party would be permitted to take out a loan only from the same sources from which it is permitted to receive donations, although existing loans will not be subject to that permissibility requirement. Fourthly, the regime would cover not only loans, but all credit facilities and the provision by third parties of guarantees and securities.
	On 20 March, the Lord Chancellor wrote to all the parties represented at Westminster and he has since held meetings with many of them. Each has shared our concern that we should act quickly and recognised that a scheme similar to that now well established for donations would be a proportionate response to the need for transparency. We have also taken the views of Sam Younger, chairman of the Electoral Commission, who has welcomed the proposals, and consulted the British Banking Association.

Bridget Prentice: As I have said, the events of afew months ago showed that we needed transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North(Mr. Winnick) pointed out that there was a loophole that no one in this House recognised. Our discussions with the various parties represented here have led us to come up with what we think are sensible, coherent and transparent proposals. I shall not comment on any Metropolitan police investigation that may be under way, but I believe that the amendments will reassure the House and the general public about how political parties will be funded.

Bridget Prentice: If I can make a little progress, I shall deal with the question of third party loans.
	The other major difference that requires a different approach is the continuing nature of a regulated transaction. Because regulated transactions involve an ongoing relationship, it is necessary to require the reporting of variations in the terms of the transaction. We have done that in new section 71N. Whenever one of the particulars that are required initially to be reported about a regulated transaction is varied, the party is obliged to record the change in the next transaction report. We believe that that will ensure proper transparency. Otherwise, regulated transactions could, for example, be varied to permit the making of further advances or be put on a zero-interest basis in a way that would not be apparent. We have also imposed a requirement to report when a regulated transaction finally comes to an end.
	As for third party loans, third parties are already covered during a general election and we have an order-making power in the Bill to deal with third party loans and donations outside that period. I hope that that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is satisfied that such matters are covered by the amendments.

Bridget Prentice: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that someone who donates to a political party should not as a result be barred from being in the other House. That would clearly be nonsense. People have the right to express their political views in their own way and there is no bar on appointing a donor to the other place. People are appointed to the other place on merit. I hope that hon. Members in this place accept that.  [ Interruption. ] Noises off from the Liberal Democrats ought to be kept a lot quieter, given their own situation. They have no right to pretend to be any better than any other party in the House in dealing with these matters.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned his concern about soft money, which is something that we have to look at. Later, I shall speak about issues relating to candidates' expenses, where such money sometimes appears. We have views on how we might make progress in that respect.
	The new regime will apply not only to the political parties, but to individual members of political parties, their associations and holders of relevant elective office. The amendments also make provision for an order-making power to extend the loans regime to third parties during national election campaigns, permitted participants at referendums and election candidates in parliamentary, local government and London assembly elections. An order-making power to extend the loans regime to Gibraltar during European elections has also been provided for, mirroring once again the approach taken in respect of donations.
	We have also considered in the amendments the most appropriate means of extending the provisions to Northern Ireland. The House will know that the donations regime has been disapplied in Northern Ireland since 2000 by orders made under PPERA. However, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that has recently been debated in this place and is now before the House of Lords contains provisions that mean that the disapplication of the regime will expire on 31 October 2007. Thereafter, the donations regime will apply in Northern Ireland, with both temporary and permanent modifications. An order-making power will allow the loans regime to be modified as it applies in Northern Ireland in a way that allows it to mirror the approach to be adopted in relation to donations as provided for in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
	The measures also bring about a number of consequential amendments to PPERA to reflect the introduction of the new regime for regulated transactions and to tie the two regimes together. The changes include an amendment to section 3 of PPERA so that those people who have made loans to political parties are excluded from being eligible to be electoral commissioners, reflecting the regime that currently applies to donations. Similarly, the amendments establish that an electoral commissioner shall cease to hold office if he is named as a participant in the register of recordable transactionsthat is, if he gives a loan or other donation to a political party.
	In accordance with the commitment that I gavethe House 20 March, the amendments represent a comprehensive package of measures to make it compulsory for political parties to disclose any loans that they receive. Our intention has been to achieve as great a transparency for loans made to political parties as applies to donations. We believe that the measures now provide a robust and workable framework to ensure greater transparency in respect of significant financial benefits afforded to political parties, members of political parties and holders of relevant elective office. I commend them to the House.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman was in no way responsible so my question is not personal, but why was there no disclosure prior to 1997? When the Committee on Standards in Public Lifeoriginally known as the Nolan Committeewas set up, John Major made it perfectly clear that political donations and contributions would be excluded from its remit.

Oliver Heald: As I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree, it was a different era. We all accept things now that we may not have accepted years ago. I am sure that that is true for him as much as it is for me.

David Heath: I broadly welcome the amendments in this group. I am a little disappointed that the Leader of the House is not here, because this area is specifically one of his responsibilities. That is one of the reasons why I retain responsibility from the Liberal Democrat Benches for the issue. However, he is not here. No doubt we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter with him in the future.
	May I deal first with amendments Nos. 61 to 63, which were moved in another place by Lord Goodhart? This is a perfectly sensible compromiseor a proportionate response to what had become an issue. The figure 12 was not simply plucked out of the air. It accords to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and enables the political parties to describe themselves as they wish and as they feel is appropriate. The previous figure of five was arbitrary and was perhaps over-restrictive. I am grateful to the Government for recognising that there was some strength in that argument and for accepting the fact that what was proposed was a sensible move.
	I also entirely welcome amendments Nos. 64 to 72, which build on the point that I originally made on Second Reading about the dual reporting procedure that applied to Members of this House. That gave rise to inconsistencies and additional bureaucracy to no end in terms of better transparency or regularity. The Government accepted the principle and I share the Minister's view that a critical part of that process involved the deliberations of the Standards and Privileges Committee, of which I used to be a member, and the contribution to the debate of its Chairman,the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire(Sir George Young). The fact that the Government have been able to go to the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and come up with positions that are consonant with what is being proposed for Members of this House seems entirely rational and right. I welcome those amendments.
	We are dealing with the issue of the funding of political parties. We should not forget the genesis of these proposals. They were born out of a certain degree of panic at the very adverse comments in the press when it came to light that various parties were indulging in the practice of taking loans. The clear link in the public mindI make no comment at this stage about whether it is a real position or a perceptionbetween the provision of loans and the acquisition of preferment and particularly entrance to our legislature in the upper House, is something that we simply cannot afford to allow to continue. It is right that, as far as we can, we should reach a consensus between the political parties to ensure that that perception is no longer allowed to prevail.

David Heath: There is a perfectly respectable unicameralist view; it is not one that I share, but it has its own logic, although this House would have to do a much better job of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account if we were to move to a single Chamber. What is surely unacceptable is to have a wholly appointed House when it is so clearly prey to the whims of individuals in high office and the perception that there is a connection between providing funds for political parties and entering the legislature. We simply must not accept that in the British Parliament and we must be absolutely clear that we will not accept it.
	The matter of loans is a small sideshow in the process that we must now undertake to cleanse the Augean stables of party political funding, but it is necessary and I welcome it. The Minister said in her opening remarks that none of us perceived the loophole when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was going through. That is absolutely right. None of us did. But somebody certainly did subsequently. It was clearly subsequently noticed that this was a way in which political parties could acquire funds without that being properly reported. There is anecdotal evidence that people were pressed to change their intended gift into a loan. We can only guess at what the motive for such a change might be.

Andrew Love: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only thing worse than having political parties that are dependent on a few rich individuals is having political parties that are dependent on one rich individualI am not speaking about his party when I say that? Does he also accept that the Government have set up the review that is being undertaken by Sir Hayden Phillips? Many of the concerns that he and others have raised should be dealt with by that review, as should many of the points that party members from the nations and regions continue to press upon us. There should be all-party agreement on the matter, and, hopefully, we can clean up the act.

David Heath: I am not sure that it is entirely right to say that we have not done so already. I accept that we have not put our proposals together in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has done, for which I commend him. However, I hope that he acknowledges that his proposal on a 50,000 cap has been our policy for some time. We have been clear about the need for both that and transparent reporting. I have made speeches in which I have made our broad attitude clear. We will be giving evidence and working with others in the context of Sir Hayden Phillips's review, and I hope that we will be able to reach a consensus. However, I foresee that there will be difficulties due to the differing perspectives and sources of income of the parties represented in the House. Some difficulties may be reconcilable, but perhaps some will be irreconcilable. We should strive seriously to try to find a consensus because if we do not, the whole of our political and democratic process will be cheapened by our lack of ability to find a common view.
	There is merit in the proposals on the reporting and admissibility of loans. I wish that such provisions had been in place some time ago. It would have been better if we had realised the possibility of adopting them at the time at which the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed, but it is easy to be wise after the event and not to realise the ingenuity of those who wish to circumvent any system that is putin place.
	I am especially grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the strength of an argument put forward by Lord Goodhart in another place. He made the point that cumulative payments could be part loan and part donation, and that several separate loans, or a mixture of loans and payments, could reach the threshold. The Government tabled appropriate amendments to take account of that. I am also grateful to the Minister for explaining capitalisation in relatively simple terms and outlining her proposals in that respect. I know that her colleague in the other place struggled to make sense of the proposals, but I think that we understand what is being suggested.
	The Minister will know that we disagree with the Government on one aspect of the proposals, although we have not tabled amendments to reflect that at this stage because reaching consensus is more important than getting absolutely everything. However, there is a strange anomaly that if a loan is made before the commencement of the relevant part of the Bill by a donor who proves to be non-permissible, it will be allowed to be maintained as a loan, despite the fact that if it had been made after the commencement, it would be unlawful. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate not to criminalise the loan and retrospectively make unlawful something that was quite lawful, but to require the loan to be repaid after an appropriate period of time so that the situation could be regularised. Such an approach would be logical and consistent with what the Minister said would happen if a loan was taken in good faith after the commencement of the legislation, but it was proved, after further reflection, that the donor was non-permissible. In such circumstances, the loan would have to be returnedthere is no suggestion that that should not be the caseso, to put it mildly, there is a certain lack of logic behind the Government's proposals.
	As far as we are aware, from the evidence that we have been given, there would not be a significant quantity of outstanding loans. Of course, a party would be able to make a full repayment before the commencement of the provisions, so even reporting would not be necessary because the matter would become a closed book. Some parties will wish to take advantage of that ability in respect of donations that come from overseas sources, while others will not have such loans to report. Others might take the view that they would have to make the identity of the donor public under the requirements of the legislation if the loan was still outstanding, at which point they could maintain the loan, and that would be an equally satisfactory outcome in terms of transparency. However, a difficulty would arise if the identity of a donor became known and it was quite clear that that person should not have made a donation under the terms of the Bill.
	I do not understand the Government's position on the matter. They should have thought again, but I acknowledge that when we made such points in another place, two parties did not agree with our position. They might have had their reasons for doing so, although I do not think that those reasons were based on logic, but I accept that as we were unlikely to secure a majority in the other place, we were certainly not going to secure a majority here, which is I why I have not tabled amendments on the matter today.

Bridget Prentice: I echo the hon. Gentleman's words. I, too, hope that the consensus continues. I am grateful to him for saying that we have achieved a great deal in a relatively short period. I apologise to the House on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who cannot be here for this part of the debate because of a previous engagement.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's position on pre-existing loans. We did not think that it would be appropriate to invalidate arrangements that were lawful when they were made. That is not the purpose of the amendments. We did not intend to wreak havoc on the finances of different political parties. However, he alluded to the fact that any loan that is outstanding when the Bill becomes law will need to be reported, and people will be able to see whether loans were given by those who become non-permissible. People can make their own judgments as a result. The Labour party has made clear where all its existing loans have come from. I recommend that position to all parties.
	The House will have noted my emphasis throughout on explaining what the new provisions will achieve to bring greater openness to the activities of political parties in relation to loans and similar transactions. They set out a comprehensive regime, benefiting as it does from the precedent of the donations regime. I hope that as a result we will be able to have a fuller debate at a later stage on some of the issues arising from that. As I said, Sir Hayden Phillips will look at other aspects of party political funding. No doubt we will return to the subject in another form at a later stage.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Lords amendments Nos. 62 to 75 agreed to.

Bridget Prentice: The amendments relate to the registration system. Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 relate to the co-ordinated online record of electors. Amendment No. 5 relates to the new duty on registration officers to maximise levels of registration. Given the earlier debate, I do not wish to pursue the arguments on registration further at this stage. The House has reached another consensus on the importance of increasing registration. The amendments will ensure that registration officers do their bit in making sure that the registers are as comprehensive as possible.
	Amendment No. 1 was made in response to concerns that the regulations governing the publication and supply of information kept on CORE to bodies such as political parties might differ greatly from those which apply to electoral returning officers at a local level. As Ministers made clear in another place, CORE will not change the information that is held on electoral registers, or the records that EROs are required by law to keep, or the persons and organisations to whom information may be supplied. It simply acts as a central point of access.
	Some flexibility is needed, however. For example, the CORE keeper will not be required to keep a copy of the full register available for public inspection. There is also flexibility because the amendment more clearly sets in law the principle that the regulations governing access to information held in CORE will be the same as those that apply to EROs.
	Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 were also made in response to the concern in another place that, as originally drafted, some of the security measures included in the CORE provisions might call legitimate acts into question, rather than focusing on fraudulent activity. An example of that is the potential for large households with a number of postal voters, such as student halls, to be flagged up as potentially fraudulent. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 tighten up the Bill's drafting so that CORE will instead focus on instances where large numbers of postal votes have been redirected to an alternative address, as that is a circumstance in which fraud may be involved.
	There was also a concern that the Bill's existing provisions would flag up legitimate instances of a person voting as another elector's proxyin a sense, the reverse of the earlier concern. Amendment No. 3 responds to that by focusing again on fraudulent acts of double voting.
	The new duty on EROs is set out in amendmentNo. 5. The new duty is to ensure that the electoral register is complete and comprehensive. Clause 9 sets that out as a new duty and includes certain minimum steps that EROs must take to maintain their registers. As drafted, clause 9 includes
	making on more than one occasion house to house inquiries.
	Under amendment No. 5, EROs would instead be required to make such inquiries on one or more occasions. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that there is no need for electoral officers to make more than one visit if the first visit gives them the comprehensive information that they need.

Bridget Prentice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly are minded to lay the appropriate measure before the House.
	Secondly, the amendment places a duty on the Ministry of Defence to keep a record of the electoral registration details of service personnel that can be used both as a prompt to the individual to update registration details with the local electoral registration officer, particularly the address to which postal votes should be sent, and as a focus for efforts to encourage service personnel to register. The record will provide statistical information that will allow continuous monitoring, and it will facilitate communication between unit registration officers and the local electoral registration officer about the numbers registered to assist in future registration campaigns.

Bridget Prentice: If hon. Members will allow to me complete my explanation of the amendment, they may be reassured that it is a much more progressive and positive way forward. It is part of a package of measures to aid the registration of service personnel that includes closer co-operation between the officer in each unit responsible for electoral registration and the ERO. The MOD will issue every new entrant to the armed forces with an electoral registration form, and it will run campaigns during the annual canvass for service personnel whose service declaration is about to expire. Members of the armed forces will receive reminders in their payslips about the need to register to vote and information such as website addresses and so on. Access to service accommodation will be granted to electoral registration officers. Pilot schemes for on-site polling stations at two separate military establishments took place in this year's local elections in Rushmoor and Westminster. Future campaigns will include a service Registration Day, which will act as a focal point. Unit registration officers will be pro-actively using all appropriate measures to remind and inform service personnel and their families both of the requirement to register to vote and of the way in which they can do so.

Bridget Prentice: I do not believe that substantially more service personnel were registered under the old scheme. There were similar problems of under-registration to those that we recognise now among the young men and women in our armed forces. The record that the Ministry of Defence will keep will enable us to target registration gaps.

Andrew Tyrie: I am amazed by the Minister's comments. When I looked into the matter in 2004, prior to the last election, I discovered that in the year before the introduction of the new scheme, registration was over 87 per cent. in a ward in my constituency where there were almost exclusively service personnel, and that after the introduction of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 registration had fallen to42 or 43 per cent. I would be very surprised if that or a similar situation were not replicated right across the United Kingdom, in view of the Government's own survey, which shows a drop and an appallingly low level of service personnel participation in the election.

Bridget Prentice: Yes, I understand what thehon. Gentleman is saying. To some extent we will be able to do that, to see whether there is an increase or a decrease in registration year on year in each of the services. That might go some way to meeting the point that he makes.

Bridget Prentice: I am indeed aware of that survey. One of the reasons that it was published last week was to inform this very debate. The Ministry of Defence wanted hon. Members to understand the present situation. In its co-operation with me and with my Department on the Bill, the MOD has given a very positive steer on the work that should be done. The figure of 34 per cent., which none of us would say is high enough, does not take account of the fact that some service personnel are registered at home. When we bandy about statistics, we must make sure that we cover all the options. I am not satisfied with the number of service personnel who are registered, and neither are my colleagues in the MOD, which is why we have tabled the amendments. However, I do not believe that the position is much worse than pre-2002.
	I hope that I have responded comprehensively on the subject of service personnel registration. We have made huge strides in that regard, and I hope that the House will welcome and endorse the amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for his continuing support.

Bridget Prentice: Indeed, on operations, and sometimes, as we know, in extremely dangerous life-threatening situations. I am grateful to my colleagues in the MOD for the positive and supportive way in which they have responded to the issue. We will do everything that we can to register those people, because it is not acceptable to send them to represent our country abroad in very dangerous situations without giving them every opportunity to vote in any of our elections.
	Amendments Nos. 78, 87, 94, 105, 107 to 109 and 124 were introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Rix and Lord Carter with support from the Government. They deal with the abolition of common law incapacity and relate to assistance for people with disabilities. The other amendments in the group are consequential, and they change the terms physical cause, physical incapacity and incapacity to disability.
	Amendment No. 78 abolishes any common law rule that links a person's capacity to vote to their mental state. That is what currently ties the language of idiots and lunatics to electoral legislation, and it has led to disabled people being denied the right to vote. That link is derived from outmoded concepts and terminology found in 14th-century statute law and 18th-century cases. It has led to election officials making unjustified assumptions about the mental capacity of disabled people, and it has no place in modern law and our modern democracy. Amendment No. 78, which has been developed in conjunction with organisations such as Scope and Sense, will allow disabled people to be subject to exactly the same eligibility criteria as everyone else.
	Other amendments in the group clarify the language used about disabled people in election law, replacing the word incapacity with the word disability, which is a much more appropriate term for the purposes of election law, because it encompasses all forms of disability and does not simply imply mental incapacity. I am proud that the Government have eradicated that language and the behaviour that it encourages from electoral law.
	Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 relate to anonymous registration and the names of electors allocated to polling stations. As it stands, the returning officer would have no obligation to provide the parts of the register that contain entries relating to those who are anonymously registered. The amendments correct that by substituting names of in rule 29(3)(c) for entries relating to, and similar consequential changes are already included at other points within the Bill.
	Amendment No. 83 makes a small change to the provisions relating to anonymously registered electors. Paragraph 15(7) of schedule 1 allows the electoral number of an anonymous entry to be included in the edited version of the register, which is available for general sale. Although an anonymously registered person's name and address will not appear on the edited register, we believe that the inclusion of even the elector's number creates a small potential risk, particularly in registers that cover a small area where undue attention could be drawn to an anonymous entry. The risk is small, but it could be avoided altogether if the edited register were not to include anonymous entries.
	Conservative amendments (a) and (b) would create a system in which the relevant Department would have to register service personnel and Crown servants, unless those people chose to opt out, and they would have significant resource implications. Apart from setting up the system, the Department would be obliged to check with the relevant electoral registration officer that the relevant person was actually registered to vote, which would be extremely time-consuming and costly. In addition, the amendments cover all Departments, which seems unnecessary because, with the exception of service personnel, about whom I have already spoken at length, we have no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with electoral registration among employees of other Departments. I therefore askthe hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire(Mr. Heald) to withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and other Conservative Members have pressed the Government hard to tackle the problems that have arisen for service voters since the 2000 Act. Although the 2000 Act gave service voters various ways to register, the fact that only 46 per cent. of servicemen and women, and just 28 per cent. of those based overseas, voted in the last general election indicates the serious nature of the problem. Those concerns prompted the MOD to conduct the survey, which showed that only 60 per cent. of service personnel were registered to vote at the last general election. The Army had a significantly lower registration rate than either the Navy or the RAF. Furthermore, only 34 per cent. of those serving overseas were registered compared with 64 per cent. of those based in the UK, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made a moment ago.
	Those findings are disappointing and show that urgent action is needed to address the problem. However, the actual registration figures are probably worse than the MOD figures suggest. The overall response rate to the survey was only 45 per cent, but in the key category of other ranks in the Army based overseas only 26 per cent. bothered to return the survey, of whom only one third were registered. The report accepts that personnel who did not respond may well have different voting and registration experiences from those who did. It makes sense that those who returned the survey were a self-selected group and were therefore much more likely to include those who were registered to vote. In my view, those who failed to return the survey will almost certainly be people who tend to fail to return electoral registration forms, andI think that that means that significantly less than34 per cent. of servicemen and women serving overseas are registered.
	The current situation is very concerning. Of those who responded to the survey, 61 per cent. were unaware that they had to re-register every year, and that percentage increased to 71 per cent. among those overseas. The Constitutional Affairs Committee has called on the MOD to look into that issue. Amendment No. 6 does not go very far, because it simply encourages the MOD to register its personnel rather than making it a requirement or duty. One therefore has to ask whether working for the MOD, serving as a soldier in dangerous circumstances, is just like any other job, or whether it imposes some greater duty on the employer compared with the position of a student or other person on civvy street. The Army pamphlet, Basically fair: equality and diversity in the British Army, says:
	As a soldier you are expected to put the needs of the Service first and to forgo some of the rights enjoyed in civilian life. In return you can at all times expect to be treated fairly, and to be valued and respected as an individual.
	In other words, a soldier does not have the full rights of civilian life and is expected to put the needs of the service first. In many cases, as we know, soldiers give much more than othersindeed, they give their lives. In those circumstances, surely the MOD can do as well as a university.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend think it bizarre that the Government earlier rejected a sensible proposal to introduce the use of national insurance numbers to prevent fraud because it would lead to a drop in registration, yet they will not take this step, which would guarantee increased registration among servicemen? Why do the Government seem not to care about the registration levels specifically of people in our armed forces?

Simon Hughes: Before I come on to the substantive debate about service personnel, I emphasise that we support all the other amendments and I am grateful to the Government for accepting them. Some of them were tabled by Opposition Members, including colleagues of mine. Lord Greaves and others pressed some and I am grateful that they have been accepted.
	The main debate is about Lords amendment No. 6 and amendment (a), which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) tabled. I hope that we are all united in our view that we must deal with a severe problem. The hon. Gentleman read out the figures, which my noble Friend Lord Garden cited in the debate in the Lords. They show that there has been a considerable drop in the number of registered service personnel and the number of service personnel who vote, and a worse drop in the number of service personnel overseas who vote. That is evident from the facts. We are grateful for the figures but even they may hide the reality.
	What should be done? I hope that I do not inappropriately betray confidences when I say that I know that the Department for Constitutional Affairs has been keen for some time to press the Ministry of Defence to make a set of commitments. It has also been keen for the proposal that has now come from the Lords to be agreed. I believe that it is generally known that the Ministry of Defence did not sign up to that until the recent reshuffle. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who is present, made it clear that they shared the view of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I pay tribute to them for making their views clear and for the fact that, at last, there was an end to the differences between the two Departments.
	Lord Garden, who was a Chief of the Defence Staff in a previous life, knows about such matters. He sensed that there was resistance in the Ministry of Defence and said so. He made it clear that the resistance was unacceptable. The Government have now accepted the amendment that my noble Friend originally tabled and that was supported by the Opposition parties and others. It is now before us, with Government support. There is a remaining difference, which is not big, between the Government position, for which we voted in the House of Lords, and amendment (a). My colleagues and I are sympathetic to its objective but, given that Lords amendment No. 6 is the proposalindeed, the exact wordsthat we tabled, it would be unfair to say to the Government, Thank you very much. You've tabled what we were tabling, but we're going to vote against it. In all logic and honesty, we must be consistent about that.

Simon Hughes: I am always willing to be tempted but I shall have to show some discipline to the troops who will emerge at the appropriate moment.  [Interruption.] They keep coming to ask me when they will be required and I have told them that it will not be before half-time in the Brazil  v. Croatia game.
	Let me get back to the serious matter before us. I hope that a combination of the proposal before us, as agreed by the other place, and all the undertakings that the Ministry of Defence has given, will be put in place. Speaking bluntly, it will be a disgrace if they are not. We have had an undertaking that there will be registration campaigns and visits to barracks and service quarters, and that people will be given an opportunity to register when they sign up and regularly thereafter. We have also been assured that they will be able to stay on the register for three, four or five years rather than just one. In that way, they will not have to worry about registering each year if they are deployed away from home, which is clearly an improvement. The MOD will have to ensure that it provides the facilities and regular opportunities for service personnel at home and for those going around the world to be on the list, so that they can exercise their right to vote, whether in person, by post or by proxy.
	It is reasonable to stop at that point now, however, because it would change the nature of the relationship if we made the Ministry of Defence unique in being the only employer to have to do this for its personnel. I can see the argument for doing that and I am sympathetic to where the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his Conservative colleagues are coming from on this matter, but it would be slightly inconsistent to do so. There are diplomatic personnel, civil servants and people in the private sector, as well as other people in public services who are sent out round the world. It would be slightly illogical to place a unique duty on the MOD to do this for its own people if a similar obligation did not exist for, say, a university sending some of its staff abroad, or for the House sending some of our Clerks to a conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
	We will judge the results of these measures by what we see. If numbers are not restored to their former levels or better, we shall have to go furthereither in practice or in legislation. But I hope that the message has been sent out loud and clear by the Ministers to the Chief of the Defence Staff, and I hope that it will be clear as soon as the provision becomes law that people will be expected to comply with it. I hope that it willbe reviewed regularly, not only by the Electoral Commission and the Government, but by all colleagues in all parties in the House.
	I end by echoing what has been said by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and others. Like them, I have many constituents who have served abroad. One of my staff has just come back from serving with the Marines in Iraq, and colleagues of mine have family members who have served all over the world. The reality is that, of all people who have an entitlement to vote and who should have the opportunity to do so, those who put their lives onthe line for their country deserve that opportunity the most. It should be made as easy for them as possible to achieve that, and this provision represents a good step forward. If it is insufficient, we will go further. Given that we argued for this and that the Government have delivered, we will support them in the Lobby tonight. However, I hope that they and the MOD understand that, this time, they have to deliver. There must be no fudging; otherwise, they will certainly be hearing a lot more from us.

Nicholas Soames: Few of us in the House can resistthe blandishments of the Under-Secretary of Statefor Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), except perhaps on fox hunting. She is regarded on this side of the House as being eminently sound. There is no one here tonight who would not applaud what the MOD is trying to do. I accept that, but I rise to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and by the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
	There are servicemen and women who do not want to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who was an instructor at Sandhurst, will be well aware that many officers, in particular, who wear the Queen's uniform feel that it is improper to vote and do not want to do so. Indeed, that was often the case in my own regiment. However, they amount to a minuscule number.
	The reason that the figures were so bad at the last election was that so many of our troops were away on operations. The shaming thing is that the Army is worse than anyone else at arranging for its staff to vote, and that is why the amendment is so important. The Navy has been going away regularly for ever and ever, and the naval family service is much the best of the three services' family organisations, so the Navy will have in place some form of proxy voting, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) suggested. It will be custom-made, and the Navy takes the trouble to make sure that its people can vote. The Royal Air Force is a particularly fluffy serviceand rightlyin respect of its personnel and it has always taken more trouble over its people, but historically, the Army has never taken enough trouble. The majority of service personnel working overseas are, of course, soldiers. That is why the figures were particularly bad, which makes it even more important for the Ministry of Defence to get it right.
	I welcome the steps that are being taken. I also welcome the Under-Secretary to his new position and wish him the best of luck serving what is without doubt the most fascinating and challenging Department in Whitehall. I particularly want him to understand that getting the Ministry of Defence to do anything is like plucking teeth out of a chicken. It is extremely difficult. It means playing to a number of audiences that have all got to do the same thing.
	In order to get these provisions to work in respect of operations overseas, we need to look not to the civilian staff, but to the chain of command and the hierarchy. When it comes to dealing with a divisional or brigade headquarters, we could think of Brigadier Butler of the 16th Air Assault Brigade being given a rocket about voting problems in the middle of trying to sort out Helmand provincea ridiculous thought. There has to be a joined-up, coherent, sensible, grown-up, practical and common-sense system in place to enable soldiers to be told exactly what their rights are before they deploy. They must know that they have the right to vote and that if they wish to exercise it, arrangements will be made for them to do so.
	It is very important for the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to understand that, if she is going to make it work by ensuring that the services make it work, it will require an effort of will from the chain of command in all the services, but particularly in the Army, to get those arrangements made. Not to do so would be inexcusable. The Ministry of Defence did very badly at the last election. We called it to account for what was happening several times in parliamentary questions and the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces was either very badly informed or given less than frank answers by officials. The position in respect of service voting was deplorable and even though it is, as I say, difficult to organise, it should have been done a great deal better than it was. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who hung on like a terrier throughout.
	I welcome the amendment and commend the Minister for his approach. I applaud the fact that the Ministry of Defence is going to implement this, but it will require an effort of will by the Minister to see it through to fruition.

Roger Gale: I rise to support amendments (a) and (b) and in so doing, I seek to honour a pledge to a group of men and women from whose company I have recently returned. Under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, it was my privilege earlier this month to spend a few days on HMS Bulwark in the Gulf. That ship, with its men and women of the Royal Navy, its Royal Marine commandos and naval aviators, will have been on deployment for seven months by the time she returns to home waters. During that time, the most recent electionsthe local government elections, gently to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)took place.
	Ordinarily, when MPs visit military establishments, whether they be floating or shore-based, they expect to hear complaints about pay and conditions and all sorts of things. However, for the first time ever on my visits to military establishmentsI remind the House that I have been Parliamentary Private Secretary to two Ministers of State, so I have visited manyI heard military men and women complain about the right to vote, or, more exactly, being denied it.
	Those people discovered during the local government elections that they were effectively disfranchised and it mattered to them because they also felt that they should not have to pay council tax when they are away for such a long time. That is adding insult to injury, when they not only have to pay the council tax, but are unable to vote in council elections, and it was a cause of considerable irritation to them.
	When people are deployed away from home and their families for as long as those men and women have been away, these issues matter. When they are in the teeth of dangeras they were in the Gulf, as they are now in the Red sea and as they will be until they return home safely, we hope, in two or three months' timethey feel very strongly that we, their elected representatives, are letting them down.
	To come specifically to amendments (a) and (b), I wish to support them because I believe that they will strengthen the measures contained in Lords amendment No. 6. The Minister said that one of the reasons for resisting those amendments was that there wereI quote exactlyresource implications. I suggest to the hon. Lady that there are very considerable resource implications for the men and women who are prepared to put their lives on the line for this country. Frankly, if we cannot provide those boys and girlsthat is what they are in many caseswith the resources to enable them to take part in the democratic process, we bring shame upon ourselves and do no justice to them.
	I hope and believe that the Minister will think again, look at those two modest amendments and recognise that what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and their other signatories have sought to do is not to undermine the Government's position, but to strengthen that of our armed forces and to send out a very clear message to those men and women who serve in extremely difficult and dangerous places overseas: We respect you. We admire you. We understand your needs. We recognise your democratic rights. And in the House of Commons, we are prepared to vote for them tonight.

Andrew Tyrie: We heard the best possible justification inadvertently made by the Liberal spokesman for a scheme designed uniquely for servicemen, when the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) tried to draw a comparison between sending Commons' Clerks on an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference and sending servicemen to Helmand province. That seems to be a different order of responsibility and risk. It is clear from that example that there is a case for devising a scheme specifically for servicemen in their unique circumstances.
	I am very grateful to hon. Members for referring to the campaign that I ran before the last general electionin fact, it started in 2004to try to draw attention to the issue. This is one of the great scandalsthe other is postal votingthat came out of the 2005 general election, and neither of them have yet been adequately addressed. However, we have made some progress on this issue at least, and I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who certainly had her heart in the right place on the issue, and I strongly suspect that the Minister does too.
	We have made progress in several ways. First, I had to press the Government for a survey, but we managed to get one in the end. Although it is faulty, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) pointed out a moment ago, it tells us none the less some of the information that we need to know. It tells us that much more work is still to be done and that a lot of servicemen are not registered.
	We have also made progress because we have a Government proposal. It is the product of extensive horse-trading and tension between the two Departments represented on the Front Bench now. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice) and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) look as though they are getting on fine at the momentI am sure that, as Ministers, they arebut I have been briefed by members of their Departments about the to-ing and fro-ing that has been going on behind the scenes, and it has been substantial at times.
	The Government's proposal is to extend registration for up to five yearsthat is a step forwardbut the second part, which is more problematic, is to place a duty on the Ministry of Defence to keep a record of the registration of service personnel. The Minister rather gave the game away when she said that the record would be used to act as a prompt to encourage registration. That is well short of the requirement that we need. The Minister said that she had been encouraged by assurances about the way in which the MOD would run the scheme, and that those assurances would enable the problem to be resolved. We cannot, however, keep relying on assurances from the MOD. The MOD understandably has different priorities. It does not want to act as a registration officer; it never did. It would rather not have such an administrative responsibility, and it was happy to see the back of the old scheme with the introduction of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That is why I worry that underlying the Government's proposals will be a dependence on a level of will of the MOD to make them work. That may not always be sufficient. That is why I want the provisions bolstered.
	I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats will not join us in the Lobby tonight, as they tabled an inadequate amendment in the House of Lords and do not want to vote against their own proposals. We should support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, which will place a duty on the MOD to make sure that all reasonable steps are taken to get service personnel back on the register. On many occasions, I have outlined in the House why that is essential. It is not too much to ask of the MOD, and it is particularly important at this time, when we have service personnel, putting their lives at risk to bring democracy to other countries, who have themselves recently been left disfranchised, and who may yet, even as a result of this measure, find themselves still disfranchised. That will not do.

Julian Lewis: I promised my party's business managers that were I fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would make an exceedingly brief speech. Fulfilling that promise has been made much easier by the outstanding contributions of my four hon. Friends who have spoken before me, and by the outstanding generosity of the Minister in allowing me to make many of my points in interventions.
	Earlier this afternoon, I listened avidly to that section of the proceedings dealing with the argument about whether simply being required to give a specimen signature, as well as one or two other minor matters, might be a deterrent to people to register. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) described how such simple, little hurdles had been enough to reduce registration in those parts of the country where they had been incorporated into electoral law. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), after I intervened on him to point out that the reason for those reductions might be that the names on the list were those of non-existent people rather than of genuine people who felt that they could no longer be troubled to register, replied that even if that might be true in some cases, it was more important to get the genuine people on to the list, even if the price to be paid was that some bogus names were kept on the list.
	If having to give a national insurance number or signature, or having to register individually in some way, has such a depressing effect on the numbers of people who register to vote, might not roadside bombs, rocket-propelled grenades, snipers and all the other threats to life and limb that our servicemen and women face every day on active service conceivably have an effect on their willingness, year after yearno matter how strongly urged by conscientious, democracy-loving MOD civil servantsto sit down and fill in their forms dutifully? We have seen from the survey the massive differential between the numbers who register to vote when overseas and the numbers, even of servicemen and women, who do so when based at home. We have only heard one real argument against the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald): that advanced by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the idea that civil servants, diplomats and, heaven help us, Members of Parliament will feel aggrieved because when they go abroad they will not be registered automatically, unlike front-line soldiers, sailors and airmen, is something that I would have expected to hear from him on April fool's day rather than during a serious debate.
	I see no intellectual argument against what my hon. Friend proposes, and I see every moral argument in favour of it. It will be a shame indeed if and when the amendment is defeated by the Government and the Liberal Democrats tonight.

Keith Simpson: I declare an interest. For many years I taught the armed forces, and I married a commanding officer, who under the old Army was responsible for the registration of her military personnel.
	Unlike the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I support amendments (a) and (b). Many reasons could be given for claiming that members of the emergency services frequently risk their lives and do things that are beyond the norm, but I think that most Members would agree that the armed forces are different, in that they have unlimited liability. They do not work shifts; they can be mobilised literally within an hour, be at Brize Norton and, increasingly, be sent off on overseas operations.
	Fifteen years ago, before the collapse of the Warsaw pact, the armed forces were largely stationary. They were based either in this country or in Germany, and the Ministry of Defence had a paternalistic attitude towards them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) suggested, many of them may not have wanted to vote in one way or another. However, I believe that circumstances have changed. I think that our military personnel should be treated differently, first because of the nature and tempo of operations, secondly because many Members in all parties have received complaints not just from military personnel but from their familiesthere was considerable foot-dragging on the Government's part before the general electionand thirdly because the tempo of elections has speeded up. We are seeing more frequent elections at local, national and European level.
	I also feel strongly that the MOD and its personnel should be given an opportunity to have the right to vote. I suggest, particularly to the Minister responsible for the armed forces, that denying them that opportunity will increase the likelihood of an inclination towards some form of military federation. Sadly, as we know, many members of the armed forces have begun to view the chain of command with considerable suspicion. I suggest to the MOD that one way in which Ministers can show that they are in touch with the armed forces is to go the whole hog and support amendments (a) and (b).

Bridget Prentice: We have had a very good debate. I noted and understood the passion with which Members made their case. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise that Ministers in both the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Ministry of Defence have tried to deal with the concerns raised hereparticularly by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)and in the other place. I hope that Opposition Members will read the Lords amendment in detail. It may not go as far as they would like, but it gives the Secretary of State for Defence an obligation to encourage registration. I also hope that they do not continue to make a mistake that has been made in some contributions to the debate, which is to mix up registration with deciding to vote; there is a difference between being on the register and then making the conscious decision to go out and vote.
	I remind Members that there are other amendments in this groupaffecting people with disabilities, and so onthat I hope they can support. Nevertheless, while I ask them to support the amendments from the House of Lords, I also ask them to oppose amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 6.
	 Lords Amendment agreed to.
	 Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 agreed to.
	New Clause
	 Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 12, to insert a new clause Registration in pursuance of service declaration.
	 Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a) [Mr. Heald.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendmentsNos. 17 to 46, 50 to 58, 84 to 86, 96 to 101, 104, 106, 123, 125, 130 and 132.

Bridget Prentice: I can most certainly give the hon. Gentleman that solace. There will be only one polling station.
	Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 relate to false statements at nomination. They are consequential on the removal of what was clause 23 of the Bill. An independent candidate in his consent to nomination would have been required to
	state that he has not been selected or authorised to stand in the name or on behalf of any registered party, organisation or other person.
	Clause 27(3) makes it an offence to make a false statement to that effect. However, as that statement is no longer required to be made, there is no need to create another offence. I know that Liberal Democrat Members will be particularly pleased that we are not creating any further offences.
	Amendments Nos. 19 to 26 and Amendment No. 88 relate to the provision for candidates' expenses. Hon. Members might recall that we had a vigorous debate on that issueled by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns)on Report in the Commons.  [ Interruption. ] Indeed, it was led very ably. Several issues were raised and the Government took on board the views of hon. Members and resolved to work through them in another place. The key concern that we were trying to address by introducing the four-month period for candidates' election expenses was that of unregulated spending taking place in advance of the elections expenses period beginning. We touched on that in an earlier debate this evening. The amendments that we are considering today will return us to the present situation in respect of the length of a candidate's elections expenses period. A candidate's election expenses will count against his or her statutory expenditure limit from the point at which they become a candidate. In the case of a candidate at a general election, that will be the period between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In local elections, it is the period from the last date of publication of the notice of election up until polling day.
	For the record, I should point out that these amendments will not affect the very useful provisions in clauses 29 and 31, which clarify the scope of activity by unauthorised third parties under section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and what counts as election expenses for candidates. I recognise that the Bill will not now address the problem of unregulated amounts of money being spent by candidates in the months or weeks leading up to the point at which the general election is called. As I am sure that we are all aware, political campaigning techniques are becoming more sophisticated and more time, effort, and money is being invested in campaigning in marginal seats in particular. The issue is about money being spent at a local levelsometimes quite large amountsand not counting as candidates' election expenses because it is spent before the dissolution of Parliament.
	Labour Members have already expressed their concerns about the way in which that has affected results, particularly in the last general election, and I am sorry that we have been unable to come up with an early solution to the problem. However, along with working towards a consensus on this issue with the parties and peers in another place, we have talked toSir Hayden Phillips and asked him whether he will extend his review to look at the issue of expenses of parties and candidates during the election period. This approach will make sense, because it means that all facets of party funding and election spending will be examined across the piece. I am sure that a comprehensive approach can then be achieved. I know that Sir Hayden will welcome any input that hon. Members care to make to that review on this and related matters.

Alan Whitehead: I understand the reasons for the withdrawal of the four-month rule, particularly because of the difficulty of finding out what exactly a four-month rule constitutes as far an election is concerned. However,it is a great pitymy hon. Friend is reflecting on thisthat something like it could not have been included in the Bill. That is particularly the case given that the abusethat is what it isnot only took place before the last election, but is going on now, and was going on as soon as the last election was completed. It seems essential that early action be taken. When my hon. Friend replies to the debate this evening, will she indicate whether, should Sir Hayden Phillips come up with something that passes muster as far as providinga proper end to this abuse is concerned, she will consider

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes the case for action extremely well. I hope that he and other hon. Membersnot just Labour Members, because I hope that Opposition Members will reflect on the matter and realise how scandalous the situation iswill offer positive solutions to Sir Hayden so that we can rectify the situation as soon as possible.
	Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 46, 84 to 86, 97 and 99 deal with a system of electoral observation in the United Kingdom. As a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, we have sent teams tobe observers of elections. The organisation also has responsibility for sending teams of international observers to elections that take place here. However, the UK has never had an official method by which international electoral observers may attend election proceedings in the United Kingdom. The amendments thus give effect to the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and other electoral observation experts by facilitating such observations.
	It was intended that the UK should be broughtinto line with many newer democracies by giving independent electoral observers the right to observe proceedings and working practices, and that we should bring greater transparency to the electoral system, in line with international electoral practice. However, we received representations that suggested the provisions of clause 33 did not go far enough to ensure that UK elections could be observed freely and objectively. We accepted those arguments and hence brought forward amendments.
	The Lords amendments will remove the requirement of accredited individual observers to apply for the permission of a returning officer or counting officer to attend proceedings at the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers, proceedings at a poll and proceedings at a count. They also remove the ability of election officials to revoke their permission at any time, with reasons. That means that any removal of accreditation will have to be made by the Electoral Commission, which will give reasons for that revocation.
	As part of the removal of those requirements, observers should not have to inform electoral administrators of the places that they intend to observe, or, indeed, the time at which they will arrive. However, observers will be subject to any existing enactments that regulate attendance at election proceedings. We have included two caveats in the provisions: the Electoral Commission will be able to specify a maximum number of delegates that may attend any single election proceeding, and may revoke an organisation's observer accreditation, giving reasons. It must be clear to the House that the power to specify a maximum number of delegates will not limit the number of delegates that an organisation can send to observe an election generally. The limit will be on the number of delegates who can attend a particular proceeding. For example, the commission may object to an organisation requesting to send 50 delegates to the counting proceedings for a parliamentary by-election. The amendments also remove the requirement for representatives of the Electoral Commission to apply for the permission of a returning officer to observe an election or other electoral proceedings, or for the permission of a counting officer to observe proceedings at a referendum.

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I am glad that we have managed to reassure him.
	The safeguards do not affect any other power an electoral officer may have to maintain order at any election proceeding. The particular power in this group of amendments is needed to enable electoral officers to protect the integrity and proper conduct of the electoral process. Without such safeguards, electoral proceedings could be open to abuse by an observer whose motives for attending turn out not to be legitimate, objective scrutiny of the elections.
	The purpose of Lords amendments Nos. 50 to52 is to fulfil the commitment that my right hon.and learned Friend the Minister of State made on17 November to provide for the piloting at a local level of photos on ballot papers. Should a subsequent evaluation prove positive, the amendments also allow for roll-out at parliamentary and local elections and by-elections. The Electoral Commission supports the piloting of the provision.
	Lords amendments Nos. 53 and 125 relate to voting by persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. If a doctor considers someone to be well enough to be absent from the hospital, he or she should not be prevented from voting in person. The amendments provide that detained patients may vote in person if they are granted permission to be absent from the hospital and if voting in person does not breach any condition attached to that permission. The amendments continue to give detained patients the option to vote by post or proxy if they so wish.
	Lords amendments Nos. 54 to 58 relate to the provision of guidance in alternative formats and languages other than English and Welsh, as provided for in clauses 36 and 37. That is aimed at improving access to the electoral process for certain groups of electors who may previously have had difficulties in obtaining documents in formats that are appropriate for their needs. Clause 36 provides for the translation of election documents apart from the nomination papers and ballot papers into different languages and formats, at the electoral officer's discretion. Clause 37 covers the provision of guidance to those voting by post.
	As drafted, the clauses provided that election officials may provide documents in other formats as they think appropriate. The amendments replace may with must, changing the requirement on election officials to provide the documents in alternative formats for those voting in person and by post where necessary. The amendments also extend the type of guidance that can be offered under clauses 36 and 37 by giving election officials a general power to produce documents in formats besides Braille, other languages and graphical representations, and by specifying that election officials can provide documents in an audible form, such as a tape.
	Lords amendments Nos. 98, 100 to 102, 123 and 130 relate to access to the count and nominations. Currently, access to the count is limited to the candidate's spouse or civil partner. The amendments will provide that a candidate can invite a person of their choosing. They respond to points raised by Baroness Gale in the other place. The amendments will also cover attendance at nominations.
	The amendments deal with one further issue in relation to access to the count because they restore the discretion of the returning officer to invite any person to the count who does not appear in the list of specified persons who automatically have a right to attend under electoral law. We had originally planned to remove that discretion, but electoral administrators suggested that it could cause a problemfor example, it might prevent a local mayor who is not the returning officer from attending a count in a constituency in his area. I dare say it would also apply to Members of Parliament who wish to attend local election counts.

Bridget Prentice: Members of Parliament do not have an automatic right to attend the count, which is why we reinstated the returning officer's discretion to allow a Member of Parliament or the mayor, as I said, to do so. If the returning officer uses his discretion, Members of Parliament would not require nomination to attend the count.
	Finally, Lords amendments Nos. 104, 106 and 132 are Scottish technical amendments that clarify the fact that certain provisions in the schedules do not affect local government elections in Scotland, otherwise there could be an impact on devolved matters. I hope that the House will accept all the Lords amendments.

Oliver Heald: The Opposition accept the amendments in this group. Lords amendment No. 19 deals with the important issue of whether pre-election expenses should be capped, which was raised by the Electoral Commission. Some hon. Members believe that only one or two parties in the House target certain constituencies, but I can assure them that all parties target particular seats at particular times. We should consider the proposal to prescribe a pre-election period with capped expenses. The Government were right to include it in the Phillips review, and we are interested in the outcome. It is difficult to try to impose a retrospective cap, as it is hard to persuade agents or candidates to take responsibility for a period whenthey were not involved, so we may need to return tothe issue.

Alan Whitehead: The issue is not whether parties target seatsclearly, they dobut the large amounts of money that are raised nationally. Those funds are diverted from a national purpose and put in the hands of local parties to target local seats, giving them an uncompetitive advantage against parties that do not do so. It is difficult to resolve that central problem, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we mustdo so.

Bruce George: The last time the House debated the Bill, I waited patiently to discuss my 20 amendments to clause 33. The House did not get anywhere near clause 33, and when I realised that I would not have an opportunity to speak, I confess that I walked out in anger and missed my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs saying, Don't worry. Although we have not discussed your 20 amendments, we will pay close attention to them.
	It was a matter of great delight, therefore, when I found that the Department, through the House of Lords, had almost completely rewritten clause 33, all six and a half pages of it. I could never understand how the Department dared draft the clause in its original form. I thought that I had made representations, and I assumed that my complaints and those of others would have been taken into account by a rational Government responding rationally.
	What passed for allowing in observers would have besmirched the names of Kazakhstan and Belarusnot just democratic countries, but countries that suffer from what might be called a significant democratic deficit. Such countries may not pay any attention to the election observers' reports, but they allow election observers in to wander round, to talk to people and to interfere politely in the way in which the count is conducted.

Bruce George: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, like me, has observed elections. I have headed the short-term observation missions to 18 elections, most of which have been pretty awful, but we have never been denied access. We walk into a polling station and the officials there either welcome us or look like animals facing the headlights and cringe, but they do not say, You can't come in here.
	It was hard to believe that clause 33 stated that before international or domestic observers were allowed into a polling station, they had to get the approval of the returning officer. If anyone had tried to stop me going into a polling station in Ukraine, Georgia, the Balkans or Russia, it would have been item No. 1 in the report that I read out the following day. I would have asked, How on earth can we verify that elections meet international standards if we were not allowed into the polling station?
	That is what would have happened as a result of clause 33. Not only would international and domestic observers have been subject to the whim of the returning officer, but even the Electoral Commission, which plays an enormous role in elections, as I am sure the Department was aware, would have had to bow its head, go down on its knees and say, Please allow us in to observe this election.
	Well, the Department came up trumps. As a result, the six and a half pages were almost completely rewritten, to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. So now we are on a par with Kazakhstan, something of which we should be immensely proud, and even with Belarus, which conducts appalling elections but still allows in observers. They may have to stand 10 ft away and not be able to see the counting, but at least they are allowed in.
	The changes are welcome. They mean that observers can gain access to all stages of the election process. If there is to be a limit on numbers, let us be clear that it will not in any way inhibit the right of observers, international or domestic, to attend. People say that the hall might get too full.
	In Ukraine, the first and second elections two years ago were totally crooked. One of the methods used to limit the opposition in those areas in which they were strong was to hold the election in a constricted place, because people simply leave if there is a crowdalthough that is better than the situation in Iraq, where bombs were dropped on queues in order to deter people. If a returning officer says, I am sorry, but we cannot let in five or 10 observers, they have arranged for the election to take place in a polling station that is not fit for purpose.
	One of my best amendments, which I was quite pleased with, was rejected. It stated that the Electoral Commission should have regard to particular documentsI listed 10 of themin determining a code of conduct. However, the Electoral Commission has said that that point will be covered in subordinate legislation. Two weeks ago, I took part in a conference on the UN declaration of principles for international election observation, which will be in the subordinate legislation.
	It is amazing how many people were oblivious to the fact that domestic and international observers were prohibited. In a bizarre exchange, the then Foreign Secretary, who is now Leader of the House, roundly castigated Zimbabwe for running fraudulent elections and criticised it, quite correctly, for refusing to allow certain election observers to observe that fraudulent election. I felt compelled to point out to him the fact, of which he was oblivious, that while he rightly condemned Zimbabwe, he should appreciate that it generally allows in international observers, while we do not. Thankfully, that situation is history, so when I criticise the Russians or anybody else on how they conduct their elections, I will not have the point thrown into my face that I have no right to criticise because we do not allow in international observers.
	In conclusion, I am delighted that clause 33 has been almost completely rewritten, and I am sure that the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights will be happy. When the time comes, I am sure that one of the first countries to test our new procedures on election observers will be that great democracy adjacent to Russia, Belarus, which will see whether we allow in observers and press the legislation to the full. However, I have seen the amendments, of which I almost totally approve, which will allow us to tell them that we know that they allow in international observers to their undemocratic political system. One of the birthplaces of parliamentary democracy, the United Kingdom, after 200 years of struggling to be more democratic, now allows in international observers, which will allow the whole process of transparency to come at long last to this country.
	I am grateful to the Minister and her predecessor,my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for listening to reason. That shows that the Government occasionally listen, and I am prepared to stand up and applaud them.

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I support all the amendments in group 4. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome(Mr. Heath) for, at the very beginning of the debates about this Bill, picking up the point that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South has just addressed. It is very important that the OSCE recognises us as having the same standards as others, because it has always struck me that some of the countries that go around the world selling democracythe United States is an obvious exampleare not so good at it at home,and we need to be open to the same scrutiny as everywhere else.
	We particularly welcome the modernising amendments to do with mental patients, giving them, not before time, a civilised ability to take part in elections. We welcome the more flexible and adaptable arrangements for different formats to cater for people with disabilities, as promoted by the Disability Rights Commission, and for people with a different first language.
	We welcome the amusing and interesting idea that pilots will allow for photographs on ballot papers. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome saidI am not sure whether this is politically correctthat that may be a hidden way of trying to improve gender balance in our Parliaments and councils. Indeed it may. He also suggested that they should be subject to the Advertising Standards Authorityas in decent, honest and truthful. Having just looking at Dod'sI will not embarrass anybodyI noticed that some of the photographs were clearly not recent. If we are to have photographs, they should at least be from the past 12 months, not 25 years before, which we have all seen on election leaflets.
	The most important subject was raised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and others. I understand why the Minister said that, to her regret and that of others, the Bill will not include any mechanism for controlling national expenditure on campaigns that are clearly targeted at individual seats. The logic is that that will be dealt with by Sir Hayden Phillips' review of party funding. I am not too bothered about who is the worst offender, but it is clear that parties with the biggest amounts of money nationally can now deploy that money in increasing numbers of target seats. We are not talking about 10, 100 or 1,000, but potentially tens of thousands of pounds. This applies to campaigns that would begin, in effect, nowa year after the previous general electionand take us right up to the calling of a general election. The only way in which parties manage to get out of the current rules is by being non-specific and seen to be nationally funded. Instead of saying, Support Bridget Prentice as candidate for Lewisham, East, or, Support Oliver Heald as candidate for North-East Hertfordshire, they use the party leader's name. My party and I are very clear that Sir Hayden Phillips must deal with that. We expect recommendations and will put in our evidence accordingly, and we expect legislation to come out of the review in good time for the next general election. Otherwise, there will be no level playing field. We see this as unfinished business. I hope that there will be consensus, even if only on this one issue, so that we can move forward. We must return to debate this as soon as Sir Hayden Phillips' review is over. We will certainly allocate time for that, and I hope that other parties will too.

Bridget Prentice: On photographs, we will consult political parties to ensure that there is support for that. I put on the record my endorsement of the splendid work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in bringing the issue of observers to the Floor of the House.
	 Lords amendment agreed to.
	 Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 8 to the Bill: Mr. Michael Foster, Mr. Oliver Heald, Simon Hughes, Martin Linton and Bridget Prentice; Bridget Prentice to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 To withdraw immediately.
	 Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 8 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Henry Bellingham: I am pleased that the Minister for Trade will reply to the debate and feel flattered that a Minister of such seniority is staying up late to do that.
	The debate is important because it is about small shops, which are a vital part of not only the small firms sector but the rural communities that they serve, as well as suburban and urban communities. They are often the focal point of the community, especially when a shop is combined with a post office and probably a newsagent. Villages and urban wards that do not have village shops or a shop at the centre of the community lack something important, which goes to the core of community spirit.
	There has been a substantial decline in the number of community storesindeed, 2,000 closed last year. As I go round my constituency, I see shops that have closed and villages with no shop. Not long ago, villages such as Pentney near King's Lynn had a shop, a pub and, indeed, a garage. Now there is nothing left in that village and the heart has been taken out of it. I am afraid that such occurrences are all too regular. Let us consider the number of closures of unaffiliated independent stores: there were 35,500 stores in 2000 whereas there were 25,893 a month agoa reduction of 10,000 in a relatively short time.
	Many hon. Members from all parties, but especially Conservative Members, have shown a great deal of concern about post office closures. In my constituency, 10 closures happened in the past five years. Four closures of urban post offices happened under the urban post office renewal scheme. Those four closures in King's Lynn had a significant and debilitating effect on the local community.
	I want to consider the different sorts of shops and some of the threats to them and perhaps examine the more promising points for the future. Most proprietors of small shops, newsagents and small pubs are innovative and proud people. The role of the small shops sector within the small firms sector is also important. Indeed, 90 per cent. of all businesses are classified as small businesses, and 75 per cent. of the entire work force are employed in small to medium-sized enterprises. That is important, particularly at a time when dark clouds are beginning to gather over our economy. I will not go into too much detail about that, but we know that the trade figures for the last quarter were shockingthe worst on record. We also know that the United Kingdom has fallen in the World Economic Forum's rankings from fourth to 13th, that business investment is at an all-time low and that productivity is falling.
	I do not believe that the extra jobs being created in the public sector will be sustainable in the short to medium term, so we shall have to look to the small firms sector to provide the employment that is vital to this country's economy. That is why it is important that Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to make life easier for small firms, and for small shops in particular, but I submit that they are not doing that.
	Let us take small post offices as an example. They have been hammered by the Government's decision to introduce automated credit transfer. There was a time when our constituents could go into post offices in villages, suburbs and towns to draw out their benefits and perhaps spend that money in the shop on sweets, groceries or newspapers. Now, they are forced to have that money paid into their bank account. We warned the Government that that would lead to post office closures but they took no notice whatever. They set up the Post Office card account, but that is to be abandoned in five years' time. What a shambles.
	We are not asking the Government to give post offices large grants. We are simply asking them to use their power as a provider of services to locate as many of those services as possible in post offices. That is where the Government can help the small firms sector and small shops. We know how much pressure those shops are under from the competition from superstores.
	That brings me to the Competition Commission's inquiry into the United Kingdom grocery market. There are many concerns involved here, including the vast market power of the four largest retailers, their ability to sell at way below cost, their tendency towards predatory pricing, their buying power and their inordinate power over suppliers. All of us who represent farming constituencies or constituencies near to farming areas know the power of those retailers over suppliers and growers and over the rural economy. It is an invidious power, and it is very damaging.
	That power is combined with the power of those retailers to get planning permission and to build up large land banks. We all know that, when they are turned down for a planning application, they apply again and again until they get planning permission. They have the power and the finance in their shareholders' funds to drive the system into despair and to get what they want.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend share my concern, with respect to the ongoing investigation, that the Office of Fair Trading differentiates between a local community store such as a Tesco Metro and a hypermarket, which might be only a mile away? It considers them to be operating in different markets even though they have the same economies of scale and supply chain issues. What does my hon. Friend think of that?

Henry Bellingham: That is an important point. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for supporting me in the debate, because it shows how strongly they feel about the issue. The Minister will have to take away those points and I hope that he will be able to answer them in about 10 minutes' time.
	I should like to make a quick point about the Sunday trading legislation. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 may well have been good for the consumer, but it certainly was not good news for small shops. It tipped the balance of retailing power decisively in favour of the multiple stores and the out-of-town sheds. HMG are in the process of reviewing the legislation with a view to extending the trading hours of large retailers. I can tell the Minister that there is overwhelming opposition in my constituency to any change to the legislation. I have received hundreds of cards and letters from people who work in shops and stalls and a very large number of representations from organisation such as the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Rural Shops Alliance and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents. The overwhelming feeling among those in the small firms sector is that there should be no extension of the legislation. Furthermore, it would be daft even to consider legislation while the Competition Commission inquiry is ongoing. I hope very much that the Minister will consider that.
	There are other concerns as well. I should like to mention the impact of smuggling and counterfeiting. One of the less savoury phenomena of recent years is the rise of the rogue traders who sell counterfeit goods and smuggle tobacco and alcohol. Indeed, I saw the other day that one fifth of all cigarettes sold in the UK are illegal. That is having a damaging effect on the small shops sector and I hope that the Government will take it on board and address it.
	Regulation gives rise to huge concernwe could debate it for many hoursand I want to make two very quick points about it. I am concerned about the rise in regulation. The British Chambers of Commerce's Burdens Barometer, which is an ongoing measure of the accumulated combined total cost of regulations on business, has now hit 50 billion since the Government came to power. That excludes the minimum wage, which Conservative Members support.  [ Interruption. ] We do indeed support it; we are on record as saying so. I was not a Member then, and I do not think that any of my colleagues who are present were Members then. We support the minimum wage, and when I was shadow Small Business and Employment Minister, I made it very clear that we supported it. There is no question of a flip-flop; we have a firm policy.
	A change in the Whitehall culture is needed, because the Government have presided over larger and more intrusive government. The bigger the Government get, the more task forces they spawn, the more agencies grow up around them and the more they interfere. Why cannot they send a signal straight away? Rather than having a Better Regulation Task Force, let us have a deregulation taskforce. Let us include sunset clauses in much of the legislation that is introduced. Let us put an end to gold-plating as soon as possible. If we do that, we might just change the culture of Whitehall in relation to the small firms sector and ensure that the Government start to think about small business, rather than just emphasising their credentials in the big business and larger business community, where, quite frankly, there is a totally different agenda.
	I want to say a quick word about garages. Nothing is more depressing than driving through a village and seeing a once-thriving local garage standing empty, probably soon to be replaced by upmarket housing. There are numerous examples in my constituency. Villages such as Grimston, Brancaster and Magdalen had thriving village garages, with shops attached. In some cases, a post office was attached as well. Many other garages are hanging on by their fingertips. I went past a garage the other day where fuel was being sold at 1.06 a litre. Most of those garages have stopped selling fuel, but HMG could consider the whole planning regime relating to small garages and their change of use. Could not HMG also examine closely the fuel supply arrangements for smaller independent outlets that do not have the buying power of the multiples?
	The outlook for small shops is bleak. The Government have ignored that crucial sector of the economy. One brighter light on the horizon, however, is the farm shop movement. In my constituency, several small farm shops have opened recently. There is one at Knight's Hill in South Wootton run by the Melton family. There is another in Bircham run by the local publican, William Poole, in conjunction with the Carter family. The Sandringham estate at West Newton is also about to open up a farm shop, which will incorporate a butcher's, village shop and post office and which will sell meat from its red poll herd.
	Public demand is changing fast. The public are getting more and more fed up with supermarkets refusing to label food properly, especially beef, pork and bacon. They are getting fed up with the crazy lack of concern for the environment shown by large retailers who source products from far-flung destinations when there are home-grown alternatives. They are also fed up with retailers having a cavalier attitude and a total disdain for the organic movement. That is why many members of the public up and down the country are beginning to speak with their pockets and demand higher standards. They are not getting those standards in supermarkets and large retailers, but they are getting them in farm shops. That is why the increase in farm shops, particularly in rural areas, is very healthy.

Ian McCartney: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on securing this debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issues that he raises. As a Conservative Member, however, he has some selective amnesia. He said that he supports small businesses, but we should remember that one small business went bust every minute of every day under the Conservative party in government. He said that he supports the national minimum wage, but the Conservatives said that the national minimum wage would cost 2 million jobs. We created the minimum wage and we also created 2 million jobs. As for support for rural post offices, his party closed 3,500 rural post offices in its last period in government. Let us have the debate and discussion, and I hope that I will be able to demonstrate that the Government not only value small shops but small businesses generally in the community and in society.
	Retail is of great importance to the prosperity of the United Kingdom economy. Eleven per cent. of our enterprises are retailers: more than 102,500 stores. UK retail sales were worth approximately 249 billion in 2005. Retail is also important in providing employment opportunities. Just under 3 million people in the UK are employed in retailone in 10 workers. Small retailers have a vital role to play in the success of the retail sector and the provision of jobs. Of course large businesses are importantvery importantbut small retailers contribute to a vibrant and diverse sector.
	The convenience-store sector is thriving, notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman said. The Institute of Grocery Distribution, a key research organisation for the sector, estimates that sales in convenience storesstores measuring less than 280 sq m, about the size of a tennis courtrepresent about20 per cent. of total grocery retail sales in the United Kingdom. The IGD forecasts that convenience stores' share of the total grocery retail market is likely to continue to rise, increasing from 20 per cent. to nearly 24 per cent. by 2010.
	Enterprise is vital to a growing and dynamic economy. To encourage and assist enterprise, we need to create the right support mechanisms. The Government provide a range of support measures for small businesses, including small shopssomething that the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot to mention. Small businesses can obtain grants, funds, loan guarantee schemes and advice through our network of business links. In addition, we ensure that the valued experience and knowledge contained in bodies representing smaller retailers is captured through involvement with our key retail forums. I hope that I am right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman indicated that the Conservative party would support those forums and their continuation.
	The retail policy forum and the retail innovation group give small businesses a voice at the heart of Government, and they use it in an effective way. Together the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Hardware Federation, the Horticultural Trades Association and the British Retail Consortium are working with the Department of Trade and Industry. About 70,000 small shops are involved. Recent informed exchanges on the possibility of extending Sunday shopping hours demonstrate the importance of the relationship.
	Members of the Virtual Retail policy forum are partners with the DTI's retail unit. They include the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the Rural Shops Alliance, the Independent Retailers Confederation and the Giftware Association. At every level, small business in each sector is involved in a real business partnership with Government. The Small Business Service, an agency of the DTI, is a specialist centre of expertise in Government to champion the sector and help small businesses to flourish. It is a shame that the Conservative party is still committed to abolishing that service. The purpose of the SBS is to help produce an enterprise society, to ensure that Britain remains the best place in the world in which to start and grow a business, and to promote enterprise and a climate in which small businesses can flourish.
	The Federation of Small Businesses supports the continuation of the SBS. A recent National Audit Office report quoted it as saying that it
	wholeheartedly would like to see SBS succeed because it is the only real answer for small businesses.
	That was said on 18 May this year. The Conservatives, however, still cling to their policy of opposing the SBS.
	Small shops have been quick to take advantage of the support that the SBS has to offer. The small firms loan guarantee scheme is a good example. It helps small companies with good business ideas to obtain loans in circumstances in which their lack of the collateral normally required as security by the lender would otherwise make borrowing impossible. Since the SFLG began, about 100,000 loans valued at more than 4 billion have been guaranteed, and since 2003-04 nearly 20,000 loan guarantees have been agreed under the scheme. I suspect that the Conservative party would not continue to support such measures. Current monthly use amounts to about 650 loans, with a total value of around 40 million a month. The average loan tends to be about 70,000.
	Small retailers have benefited. The scheme was strengthened considerably in April 2003, when changes were made that brought retail and other local services such as garages and hairdressers into the scope of the scheme. The number of small firms loan guarantees offered to the retail sector since April 2003 stands at 2,925. Between 2002 and 2005, 218 loans valued at 13.6 million have been granted in the hon. Gentleman's county of Norfolk. On his own doorstep, we are providing direct resources and funds to support the creation of small businesses or enable them to be sustained. Perhaps he would give some recognition to that.
	Another key area of business support is the Business Link service, which is a crucial part of the Government's campaign to promote enterprise. Business Link will fast-track customers to the expert help that they needwhatever the issue. Its service is delivered through advisers in customers' local area. Over the past four years, the number of customers using Business Link has doubled. The customer satisfaction levelI emphasise that we are talking about small businessesis at a record 91 per cent., and 96 per cent. of customers are willing to recommend the service to others. Again, the Conservative party has shown no desire to continue with this direct support for small businesses.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the Office of Fair Trading grocery market reference. He will be aware that I cannot directly intervene in such matters, but it will be useful and appropriate if I respond where I can. The UK competition framework has established the OFT and the Competition Commission as independent statutory bodies. The Government wished to remove politics from competition decisions, allowing expert, independent competition bodies to take decisions on mergers and markets. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will recognise the benefits of that revised structure.
	On 9 May, the OFT announced its decision to refer the grocery market to the Competition Commission for a market investigation. The evidence compiled by the OFT suggests that the planning regime acts as a costly barrier to entry, making it difficult for new stores to open and to compete with those already in the market. In addition, big supermarkets have significant land holdings, which could aggravate barriers to entry or otherwise harm consumers. In some instances, supermarkets have attached restrictive covenants when selling sites. The OFT also found that there is evidence to suggest that the big supermarkets' buying power has increased, and that some aspects of their pricing behaviour, such as below-cost selling and price flexing, could distort competition.
	Although the OFT has been specific in respect of the issues that it feels could present a problem within the market, the Competition Commission investigation is not limited to considering only those issues identified in the reference document. They could include competition in the food supply chainfarmers are an exampleand/or non-groceries sold by supermarkets. It is for the Competition Commission to make that decision.
	The supermarket code of practice, which regulates the relationship between the big four chains and their direct suppliers, is not affected at this time, and remains in place until the companies bound by itTesco, Sainsbury's, Asda and Morrisonsare released from the undertakings that form the basis of the code. It will be for the Competition Commission to make recommendations in its report on whether it believes that the code should be maintained, amended or repealed.
	I turn now to rural post offices. The Government recognise the important role played by post offices in the delivery of services to rural communities, and have taken steps to maintain their presence. In November 2000, we directed Post Office Limited to prevent avoidable closures of rural branches, and since 2003we have supported the rural network to the tune of 150 million per year. That subsidy helps the company to maintain the network of rural branches. That is in stark contrast to what we inherited from the Conservatives in 1997. Between 1979 and 1997, the previous Government presided over 3,500 closures, and produced no policy on how to ensure that the network could continue to remain relevant into the 21st century. In addition, about two thirds900of directly managed Crown branches were converted to franchise status with no clear strategy.
	It did not take long for this Government to recognise that, following decades of decline and under-investment, drastic action was necessary to get the business on track and to secure its long-term future. We set about producing policies that would help achieve thatsomething that the previous Government had totally failed to do. We set about reversing the decline. Some 500 million was injected to help fund the horizon IT infrastructure, and since 2003 the Government have not only committed 150 million a year up to 2008 to support the rural network; on top of that, we have put 210 million towards the urban reinvention programme, including some 30 million of investment grants to improve and modernise remaining branches. Not a single penny went to the post office network under the Conservative Government. Indeed, year in, year out, of the profits made by the Post Office, almost 95p in every pound was taken by the Conservative Chancellor to be reinvested in other parts of the public sector. One example was paying large-scale unemployment benefit, instead of re-inventing the Post Office to provide a modern service. I will not yield to any Conservative on investment, and future investment, in post office services. This Government have invested the amazing sum of more than 1.4 billion in the past few years in modernisation and retooling of both the directly managed Crown network service and the rural and urban network services.
	The Government's policy of preventing avoidable closures in rural areas has benefited the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk over the past 12 monthssomething that he either does not know about or has just ignored. Both the Brancaster and Syderstone branches reopened in late 2005, and the Brancaster Staithe branch is due to reopen later this month on 22 June. There are two temporary closures at Walpole St. Andrews and West Newton, and the Post Office Ltd's rural transfer advisers are working hard to fill the vacancies. I will advise the hon. Gentleman further on the reopening of those two post offices.
	We have had a debate about Sunday shopping, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer, as I am still reviewing the issue in terms of the consultation that has taken place.
	If anyone is thinking about opening a small business, they should do it now. There is no better time under a Labour Government achieving the world's most stable economy. Vote Labour and get yourself a small business!
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CORRECTION

Official Report, 12 June 2006: in column 611, first paragraph, delete 3,600 and insert 300.